gradient_generatorBuild a CSS linear or radial gradient background declaration from two or more colors. Runs on smart-tools.xyz.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Gradient type (default linear) | |
| angle | No | Angle in degrees for linear gradients, 0–360 (default 90) | |
| colors | Yes | Color stops, e.g. ["#1a7f5a", "#0d3b66"] (at least 2) | |
| locale | No | Language for the source_url link (default en) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only extra behavioral note is 'Runs on smart-tools.xyz,' which is a location detail, not a behavioral trait. It does not disclose output format, whether it's deterministic, or any side effects. For a generator tool, this is minimal.
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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. The phrase 'Runs on smart-tools.xyz' adds non-essential information but does not significantly dilute clarity. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
With four parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description adequately states the tool's function, and the schema covers parameter details. However, the description does not mention the return value (the CSS declaration), which is relevant given the lack of an output schema. It is complete enough for a simple generator but leaves minor gaps.
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%, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'Angle in degrees for linear gradients, 0–360'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and a clear resource ('CSS linear or radial gradient background declaration'), stating it works 'from two or more colors.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like color_converter or wcag_contrast_checker, which serve different color-related purposes.
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 implies usage for generating CSS gradients but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusion criteria or references to any sibling tools, so guidance is limited to inference from the tool's purpose.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but there are notable overlaps. 'hash_generator' and 'file_hash' effectively do the same thing (SHA hashing of text), and several CSV/TSV converters (csv_to_json, csv_to_sql, table_to_csv, markdown_table) have similar input handling, though outputs differ. The sheer number of converters is clear, but these near-duplicates create some ambiguity.
Names follow a generally consistent pattern: lowercase with underscores, often ending in 'converter', 'calculator', or 'generator'. A few names like 'base64', 'lorem_ipsum', and 'transliteration' deviate from the suffix pattern, but the naming style is uniform and predictable overall.
With 73 tools, this server is far over the typical well-scoped range. While the broad utility-toolkit purpose might justify a larger set, 73 is unwieldy and pushes well into 'too many' territory, making it harder for an agent to select the right tool efficiently.
The server covers a remarkably wide range of common utilities: unit conversions, calculators, text transformations, development helpers (JSON, regex, JWT, subnet), and generators. Minor gaps exist (e.g., currency converter, time zone converter), but for a general-purpose toolkit, it is largely comprehensive.