pace_calculatorRunning pace per km and per mile, plus speed, from distance and time. Runs on smart-tools.xyz.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit | No | Distance unit (default km) | |
| hours | No | Hours part of the time (default 0) | |
| locale | No | Language for the source_url link (default en) | |
| minutes | No | Minutes part of the time (default 0) | |
| seconds | No | Seconds part of the time (default 0) | |
| distance | Yes | Distance covered |
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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core calculation but does not disclose output format, precision, input validation, or side effects. The irrelevant sentence 'Runs on smart-tools.xyz' adds no behavioral value.
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 first sentence is efficient and informative, but the second sentence 'Runs on smart-tools.xyz' is irrelevant to tool function and wastes space. The description is concise overall but not tightly 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?
For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sparse. It does not explain the output content beyond 'pace' and 'speed', ignores the locale parameter, and lacks details on edge cases or return values. The description is incomplete for the tool's complexity.
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?
The input schema covers all 6 parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds meaning by linking 'distance and time' to the calculation and clarifying the unit parameter with 'per km and per mile'. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, though locale and the source_url link remain unexplained.
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 as computing running pace per km and per mile plus speed from distance and time. It specifies the resource and scope, distinguishing it from sibling calculators, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The description merely states what it computes, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the tool name without differentiating from the long list of sibling calculators.
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.