Contact Converter — Convert contact/calendar/email formats: vCard↔CSV, vCard→XLSX (vcf to excel), ICS→JSON/CSV, MSG→EML, EML→PDF. [category: convert]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Target format. Only these pairs are valid: vcf→csv, vcf→xlsx, csv→vcf, ics→json, ics→csv, msg→eml, eml→pdf. | |
| file | Yes | Parsed as the declared 'from' — bytes are never sniffed. Size caps vary by pair: 10 MB vcf/csv/ics, 25 MB eml, 50 MB msg. | |
| from | Yes | Source format. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive, so the description adds little behavioral context beyond that. It does not state what happens to the input, how the output is returned, or any side effects. The format list is more about scope/parameters than behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, readable sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and supported conversions. It contains minor redundancy ('vcf to excel' repeats vCard→XLSX, and 'Contact Converter —' echoes the title), but it is still compact and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema fully covers the parameters, and the description clarifies the conversion domain, making the tool invocable. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the converted file is delivered, which is a notable gap for a conversion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds minimal parameter detail. The description repeats valid format pairs that are already documented in the 'to' parameter description, so it does not meaningfully enhance the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('contact/calendar/email formats'), listing exact format pairs. This distinguishes it from the many generic convert_* siblings like convert_file and convert_document.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on when to use the tool by enumerating supported conversions (vCard↔CSV, vCard→XLSX, ICS→JSON/CSV, MSG→EML, EML→PDF). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain is specific enough for an agent to route appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool pairs are near-identical: octopus_mkdir/octopus_make_folder and octopus_move/octopus_move_file are literal duplicates, analyze_hash/generate_hash both compute hashes, convert_word_to_pdf overlaps convert_document, and photo_compress/photo_compress_to_size plus pdf_thumbnails/pdf_to_images have fuzzy boundaries. The descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other helpfully, but at 144 tools an agent will regularly misselect.
The dominant {category}_{verb}_{object} snake_case pattern (pdf_*, photo_*, convert_*, analyze_*, media_*) is largely consistent and predictable. However, outliers like chatwithyourpdf and describe_image break the category-prefix convention, and the octopus namespace mixes bare verbs (read, write, mkdir) with verb_noun forms (make_folder, move_file, search_meta) inconsistently.
144 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server. The broad scope (PDF, photo, video, audio, conversion, analysis, generation, file storage, web, e-sign) justifies some volume, but the count is inflated by batch and inspect variants (pdf_to_excel + batch + inspect), duplicate tools, and overlapping converters. An agent faces an overwhelming selection surface.
Per-domain coverage is remarkably deep: PDF spans merge/split/compress/protect/unlock/metadata/OCR/watermark and bidirectional conversion; photo covers editing, format conversion, face handling, OCR, and collage; file storage has full CRUD plus search. Minor gaps exist (no audio transcription, no video metadata editing, no deletion of PDF pages is actually covered via pdf_delete_pages) but the surface has no dead ends for its declared domains.
