Skip to main content
Glama

well-008-text-stats

by dev.workers.mmelnyk2000.well-008-text-stats
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Server Details

https text to counts and sha256. x402 $0.005 USDC, Base. As is, no warranty.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership by verifying the domain or GitHub account it belongs to. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of confusion or misselection between tools. Its purpose (fetch text from an HTTPS URL and compute counts plus SHA-256) is stated unambiguously.

Naming Consistency4/5

The single name 'text-stats' is clear, descriptive, and uses kebab-case with no competing conventions to clash against. It is not a verb_noun pattern like fetch_text_stats, so it is slightly less predictable for an agent inferring naming style.

Tool Count3/5

A single tool is borderline thin under the rubric, which notes 1-2 tools feels sparse. The functionality is narrowly scoped (one URL in, one JSON stats object out), so one tool is defensible, but there is no accompanying variant or helper surface.

Completeness4/5

For its stated purpose the tool is self-contained: it returns byte/char/line/word counts and a hash, documents caps, redirects, and content-type rejections, and produces a structured JSON result. It lacks options (e.g. hashing without fetching, configurable size caps, or batch URLs), which are minor gaps an agent can work around.

Available Tools

1 tool
text-statsA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Fetch a public https URL that returns text and compute byte/char/line/word counts plus SHA-256 ($0.005 USDC via x402). https only — http, file, data, localhost, and private IPs are rejected. Caps: 1 MB body, ~10s timeout, max 5 redirects. Rejects image/audio/video/octet-stream. Returns JSON { url, final_url, content_type, byte_length, char_count, line_count, word_count, sha256, warnings }. As is, no warranty. Nothing stored.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYeshttps URL that returns text to analyze. http/file/data/localhost/private IPs rejected.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: a $0.005 USDC x402 payment, 1 MB body cap, ~10s timeout, max 5 redirects, content-type rejections, and that nothing is stored. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Every sentence carries load: purpose, payment, constraints, caps, rejections, return shape, and caveats, in a front-loaded order. No filler or redundancy despite the density.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned JSON fields, plus cost, limits, and rejection rules. An agent has everything required to decide and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single url parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the https-only restriction and rejection list rather than adding syntax or format details, so it does not exceed the schema's contribution.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a precise verb+resource: fetch a public https URL returning text and compute byte/char/line/word counts plus SHA-256. An agent knows exactly what the tool produces, and the specific output fields (content_type, final_url, sha256, warnings) leave no ambiguity about scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clearly states the conditions under which it applies (https only; http/file/data/localhost/private IPs rejected) and what content types it refuses. There are no sibling tools, so no alternative routing is needed, but it stops short of an explicit 'use when' framing.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedtext-stats

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources