Skip to main content
Glama

Zuckerman Count

zuckerman_count
Read-onlyIdempotent

How many Zuckerman numbers are at most n. Through 9 there are 9, through 12 there are 11, through 24 there are 13, and through 50 there are 14. n runs from 1 to 100000. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/zuckerman-count

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "n": "<n>"
    },
    "name": "zuckerman_count"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful operational context beyond annotations: pricing per successful call, x402/Solana payment, and an HTTPS endpoint alternative.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, followed by examples, valid range, and payment/endpoint details. It is reasonably concise, though the repeated examples consume space that could have been used for a tighter definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter counting tool with no output schema, the description implies the return value ('how many') and gives sample counts. It covers range and payment context, though it omits a definition of Zuckerman numbers and does not mention sibling-tool alternatives.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that n is a threshold from 1 to 100000 and gives sample counts, but the range largely repeats schema constraints and the nature of Zuckerman numbers is not defined.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific operation: counting Zuckerman numbers less than or equal to n. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this count tool from the sibling zuckerman tool or other number-property tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides examples and the valid range of n, but it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zuckerman or other counting tools. No exclusion or selection guidance is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources