swiss-army
Server Details
22 utility tools (x402 USDC on Base): currency, PDF, image, GDPR. Free health.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.5/5 across 23 of 23 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering diverse utilities like conversion, encoding, validation, text processing, and security. Potential overlaps (e.g., classify_gdpr vs detect_secrets) are differentiated by focus (PII categories vs credentials).
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., convert_currency, validate_iban, generate_uuid). The only exception is 'health', which is a common single-word name, but the overall pattern is uniform.
With 23 tools, the server is on the higher end for a general-purpose toolkit, but each tool adds distinct functionality. The count is still within a reasonable range and not excessive for the scope.
The tool set covers a broad range of common utilities (encoding, conversion, validation, text processing, image resize, PDF extraction), but lacks some typical ones like JSON formatting, string manipulation, or compression. Minor gaps exist.
Available Tools
23 toolsclassify_gdprAInspect
Detect GDPR PII categories in text (email, phone, IP, name, location). Returns categories only, never actual PII values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to scan for PII categories |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description promises it returns categories only and never actual PII values, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects like false positive/negative behavior, language support, or privacy implications beyond that.
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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. All information is front-loaded and each sentence serves a purpose.
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 description adequately conveys the tool's function and output for a simple classification tool. It lacks details on result format or confidence but is sufficient given no output schema and a single parameter.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; it reiterates the purpose but does not elaborate on parameter details or usage constraints.
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 states the verb 'detect', the resource 'GDPR PII categories', and lists example categories. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'detect_secrets' by specifying GDPR focus and that it returns categories only.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose description but no explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use or provide comparison with other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
convert_currencyAInspect
Convert an amount between currencies using cached ECB exchange rates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Target currency code (ISO 4217) | |
| from | Yes | Source currency code (ISO 4217) | |
| amount | Yes | Amount to convert |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Only mentions cached ECB rates; lacks details on read-only nature, rate limits, or response format, and no annotations are provided.
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?
Single sentence, no redundancy, efficiently conveys the core purpose.
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?
Adequate for a simple tool, but lacks output format details and error handling info; could be more helpful.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions (ISO 4217 codes, positive amount). Description adds 'cached ECB exchange rates' context but no extra parameter detail.
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 states the tool converts currency amounts using ECB rates, distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_iban or encode_base64.
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 explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives; usage is implied but not detailed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
convert_timezoneAInspect
Convert a datetime between IANA timezones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datetime | Yes | Datetime in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss) | |
| to_timezone | Yes | Target IANA timezone (e.g. Europe/Lisbon) | |
| from_timezone | Yes | Source IANA timezone (e.g. America/New_York) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It states a standard conversion operation but lacks details on side effects, auth, rate limits, or edge cases. It does not contradict annotations.
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, concise sentence that delivers the core purpose without fluff.
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 tool with no output schema, the description could specify return format or error handling. It is adequate for a straightforward conversion but lacks completeness.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline but not enhancing understanding.
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 states the verb 'Convert' and the resource 'datetime' with specification of 'IANA timezones'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like convert_currency and decode_base64.
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 timezone conversion but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
csv_to_jsonBInspect
Convert CSV string to JSON array of objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | CSV string |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description lacks any details about edge cases, error handling, CSV format assumptions (e.g., headers, delimiter), or behavior with malformed input.
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 concise sentence of 7 words that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous information.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It omits critical details like whether the CSV must have headers, how data types are inferred, or how nested data is handled.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'input', which the schema already describes as 'CSV string'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that.
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 explicitly states the verb 'Convert', the input 'CSV string', and the output 'JSON array of objects', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'json_to_csv'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'json_to_csv' or other conversion tools. The description is purely functional without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
decode_base64BInspect
Decode a Base64 string to UTF-8.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Base64 string to decode |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose error handling, invalid input behavior, or any side effects. It only states the basic transformation.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, directly states purpose.
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?
Given tool simplicity, description covers the main action but lacks behavioral details and usage context for an AI agent.
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 describes the only parameter 'input' as 'Base64 string to decode'. Description adds no further meaning, so baseline 3 applies.
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 specifies the action (decode) and resource (Base64 string) and output format (UTF-8). It is distinct from sibling encode_base64.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like encode_base64 or other encoding tools. The description is too minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
detect_secretsAInspect
Detect hardcoded secrets, API keys, and credentials in text using pattern matching and entropy analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text, code, or configuration to scan for secrets |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions the method (pattern matching and entropy analysis) but lacks details on side effects, performance, or limitations. Adequate but not rich.
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?
Single sentence, to the point, no fluff. Efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and method.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (scans text for secrets) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of found secrets), which is important for invocation and result handling.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'text', and its description in the schema is sufficient. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 states the tool detects hardcoded secrets, API keys, and credentials using pattern matching and entropy analysis. It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling tools like classify_gdpr.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is clear, but it doesn't provide exclusions or context for sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
encode_base64AInspect
Encode a UTF-8 string to Base64.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | UTF-8 string to encode |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the encoding operation but does not discuss error cases (e.g., invalid UTF-8) or output format details beyond Base64.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with key action and result.
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 simple encoding tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to use it correctly.
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 covers the input parameter fully (100%). The description adds value by clarifying the output is Base64-encoded, which is not in the schema due to missing output 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 states the tool encodes a UTF-8 string to Base64, specifying the verb, input type, and output format. It distinguishes itself from the sibling decode_base64 tool.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like decode_base64. The context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
extract_pdf_textAInspect
Extract text content from a base64-encoded PDF document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Base64-encoded PDF document |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the operation as extracting text, implying a read-only action. No annotations exist, but the description is clear about the basic behavior. Could mention limitations like OCR or formatting preservation.
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?
Single sentence, no filler, perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. Could mention the output format (plain text) or limitations with images, but not essential.
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 coverage is 100% for a single parameter with a clear description. The tool description aligns with schema without adding extra semantics, but baseline is 3 due to high coverage.
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?
Clearly states the action (extract text), resource (PDF document), and input format (base64-encoded), distinguishing it from siblings like decode_base64.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, e.g., for scanned PDFs or other formats. Lacks context but does not mislead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
extract_url_metadataBInspect
Extract Open Graph metadata from a URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to extract metadata from |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose important behaviors: no mention of network requests, failure modes for invalid URLs, rate limiting, or that only OG metadata (not all metadata) is extracted.
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 extremely concise with a single front-loaded sentence, but it could benefit from additional structure or detail without sacrificing brevity.
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?
Given no output schema and a simple tool, the description should clarify what Open Graph metadata includes (e.g., title, image) and the response format, which it does not.
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 coverage is 100% with the 'url' parameter described; the description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 states the tool extracts Open Graph metadata from a URL, using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like 'extract_pdf_text'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'classify_gdpr'), nor any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_cspBInspect
Generate Content-Security-Policy header from structured directives input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directives | No | CSP directives map, e.g. { 'script-src': ['self', 'nonce-abc123'] } | |
| report_uri | No | Report URI for CSP violations | |
| report_only | No | Use Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only header |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, error behavior, output format, or any constraints beyond generating a header. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's full 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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of a nested object parameter, the description should explain the return value and provide usage examples or constraints. It does neither, leaving the agent without critical information.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides. It introduces the concept of 'structured directives input', which loosely aligns with the directives parameter, but does not enhance understanding of report_uri or report_only.
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 'Generate' and resource 'Content-Security-Policy header', clearly indicating the tool's function. No sibling tool performs a similar task, ensuring clear differentiation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or exclusions. The user must infer from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_hashBInspect
Generate MD5, SHA-256, or SHA-512 hex digest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | String to hash | |
| algorithm | Yes | Hash algorithm: md5, sha256, or sha512 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as deterministic output, output length, or error behavior. It only states the action without any additional context.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and algorithm options. Highly concise.
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?
Given no output schema and low complexity, the description is adequate but minimal. Lacks return value description or usage tips.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus baseline 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 clearly states the tool generates MD5, SHA-256, or SHA-512 hex digests, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like encode_base64 or detect_secrets by specifying hash algorithms.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other hashing or encoding tools). The description implies usage for hashing strings but provides no exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_uuidAInspect
Generate one or more UUID v4 values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of UUIDs to generate (1-100, default 1) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It only states the function without mentioning side effects, determinism, or safety. For a simple stateless operation, this is minimally adequate but not transparent.
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?
A single sentence that conveys the purpose and parameter. No wasted words.
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 description covers the basic purpose but omits details like the output format (e.g., returns an array when count > 1) and default behavior. While simple, it could be more complete.
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 coverage is 100% with the 'count' parameter already described. The description adds no new meaning beyond 'one or more UUIDs'. Baseline 3 applies.
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 states 'Generate one or more UUID v4 values', specifying the verb 'generate' and the exact resource 'UUID v4 values'. There is no ambiguity, and the tool is distinct from its siblings.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, but given sibling tools are unrelated (e.g., classify_gdpr, encode_base64), it's implicitly clear. However, the description does not provide any usage context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
healthBInspect
Health check. Returns server status and optional echo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| echo | No | Optional string to echo back |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns server status and optionally echoes, but does not state that it is read-only, safe, or idempotent. No mention of authentication or rate limits.
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 concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the core verb phrase. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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 tool is simple (1 optional param, no output schema). The description mentions what it returns ('server status') but does not specify the format, structure, or content of the status. Some additional context would be beneficial for complete understanding.
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 has 100% description coverage (the 'echo' parameter is described). The description adds 'optional echo' which aligns with the schema, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool is a health check that returns server status and optionally echoes input. The verb 'health check' combined with 'returns server status' unambiguously defines the tool's purpose, and it is distinct from the sibling tools which perform specific utilities.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of context (e.g., 'use to verify server availability before other calls') or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
html_to_textAInspect
Strip HTML tags and decode entities to plain text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | HTML string to convert |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes stripping tags and decoding entities. However, no mention of edge cases or security implications, but for a simple utility this is adequate.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the action.
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?
Given the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 specific verbs 'strip' and 'decode' clearly indicating the action on HTML. It distinguishes from sibling tools like markdown_to_html.
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 converting HTML to plain text but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
json_to_csvAInspect
Convert JSON array of objects to RFC 4180 CSV.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | JSON array string |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states conversion without disclosing error handling, limits, or side effects.
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?
Single well-structured sentence with verb and resource front-loaded, no superfluous words.
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?
Adequate for a simple conversion tool; covers input format and output standard, though lacks error handling details.
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 coverage is 100% but description adds clarity by specifying 'array of objects' rather than generic 'JSON array string'.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Convert' and specific resources 'JSON array of objects' to 'RFC 4180 CSV', distinguishing it from sibling 'csv_to_json'.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like csv_to_json; lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
markdown_to_htmlBInspect
Convert Markdown to HTML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Markdown string to convert |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic conversion without mentioning edge cases, error handling, supported Markdown flavor, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.
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 extremely short (four words) and conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more descriptive without harming conciseness, so a 4 is fitting.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is just barely adequate. It tells the basic transformation but omits any details about return format, error behavior, or Markdown specification coverage. It is minimally complete.
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% (the single parameter 'input' is described as 'Markdown string to convert'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 'Convert Markdown to HTML' clearly states the verb (convert) and the resource transformation (Markdown to HTML). It is distinct from sibling tools which are other conversion utilities, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. While the tool's purpose is obvious, it lacks any usage clarification beyond the bare transformation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
parse_cronBInspect
Parse a cron expression and return next run times.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of next runs to return (1-20, default 5) | |
| expression | Yes | Cron expression (e.g. '0 9 * * 1-5') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states basic function but omits details like error handling for invalid expressions, timezone assumptions, or output format (e.g., list of ISO timestamps).
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose with zero waste. It earns its place.
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 tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks information about return format and error behavior, which an agent would need to use the output correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it neither explains the expression format nor the count range beyond what the schema provides.
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 states the tool's purpose: parse a cron expression and return next run times. The specific verb 'Parse' and resource 'cron expression' distinguish it from sibling tools like convert_timezone or detect_secrets.
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. The description does not mention typical use cases (e.g., scheduling jobs) or indicate what to do with the output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resize_imageAInspect
Resize and compress a base64-encoded image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image | Yes | Base64-encoded image data | |
| width | Yes | Target width in pixels | |
| format | No | Output format | png |
| height | Yes | Target height in pixels | |
| quality | No | JPEG quality (1-100) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description should disclose behavior (e.g., lossy vs lossless, output format handling, limitations). Only states operation without behavioral details.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded and to the point.
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?
Moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema). Lacks information about return format and compression specifics, making it adequate but not complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, earning baseline 3.
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?
Description clearly states the verb+resource: 'Resize and compress a base64-encoded image.' It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which perform image manipulation.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Although no sibling performs similar tasks, explicit context would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
test_regexBInspect
Test a regex pattern against an input string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flags | No | Regex flags (g, i, m, s, u, y) | |
| input | Yes | Input string to test against | |
| pattern | Yes | Regular expression pattern |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action ('test') without detailing side effects, return value format, error behavior, or any constraints. For a regex test, it is unclear whether it returns match details or a boolean.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains the core action but omits details about the return result (e.g., whether it returns matches or a success boolean) and any error conditions.
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 already provides 100% coverage of parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond mapping 'regex pattern' and 'input string' to parameters. The 'flags' parameter is not mentioned, but the schema covers it.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Test a regex pattern against an input string.' It uses a specific verb ('test') and identifies the resource ('regex pattern'). Among sibling tools, no other tool is dedicated to regex testing, so it is distinct.
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, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description does not mention when not to use it or compare it to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_corsBInspect
Validate CORS policy against security best practices. Reports issues by severity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_age | No | Access-Control-Max-Age in seconds | |
| allow_origin | Yes | Access-Control-Allow-Origin value(s) | |
| allow_headers | No | Allowed request headers | |
| allow_methods | No | Allowed HTTP methods | |
| expose_headers | No | Access-Control-Expose-Headers | |
| allow_credentials | No | Access-Control-Allow-Credentials |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It only states validation and reporting severity, but does not specify side effects (likely none), required permissions, rate limits, or the nature of 'issues' beyond severity levels.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose. No extraneous information.
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?
Despite 6 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return format, meaning of severity, or how results are structured. This is inadequate for a validation tool that likely returns complex results.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool validates CORS policy against security best practices and reports issues by severity. The verb 'validate' and resource 'CORS policy' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like validate_iban or validate_nif.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, what inputs are expected, or any prerequisites. The description does not mention exclusions or context-specific usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_ibanAInspect
Validate IBAN (ISO 13616 mod-97) with SEPA BIC lookup for Portuguese banks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iban | Yes | IBAN string (with or without spaces) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions BIC lookup but does not disclose whether this involves external calls, what happens on validation failure, or the exact return format. The scope 'for Portuguese banks' is ambiguous for non-Portuguese IBANs.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words.
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 description is adequate for a simple validation tool but lacks details on output, error handling, and the precise scope of the BIC lookup (only Portuguese or all IBANs?). Given the simplicity, it meets a minimum viable level.
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 coverage is 100% and schema already describes the parameter as 'IBAN string (with or without spaces)'. The description adds no additional detail about the parameter beyond confirming the validation standard. Baseline 3 applies.
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 states the tool validates an IBAN, specifies the standard (ISO 13616 mod-97) and mentions a specific feature (SEPA BIC lookup for Portuguese banks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_nif or verify_eu_vat.
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 the tool is for IBAN validation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like validate_nif or verify_eu_vat. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_nifBInspect
Validate Portuguese NIF/NIPC tax identification number (mod-11 check digit).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nif | Yes | Portuguese NIF or NIPC (9 digits) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the validation mechanism (mod-11 check digit) but does not specify the return format (e.g., boolean, error throw), side effects, or behavior on invalid input. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full 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 sentence that immediately states the core function, algorithm, and target. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain the return value or expected output format (e.g., boolean, string). Given the simplicity of the tool, some missing context is acceptable, but the lack of any return indication leaves a significant gap for an AI agent.
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 schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'nif' parameter (9 digits). The description adds context about the mod-11 check digit, which is the validation algorithm, but does not explain additional format constraints (e.g., leading zeros, spaces). Since schema coverage is high, the description adds moderate value beyond the schema, earning a baseline 3.
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 states the tool validates Portuguese NIF/NIPC tax identification numbers using a mod-11 check digit algorithm. The verb 'validate' and specific resource 'Portuguese NIF/NIPC' make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes well from other validation tools in the sibling list (e.g., validate_iban, verify_eu_vat).
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_eu_vatBInspect
Verify EU VAT number via VIES (European Commission free API).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vat_number | Yes | VAT number without country prefix | |
| country_code | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. PT, DE, FR) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions using the VIES API, implying an external call, but does not disclose potential rate limits, latency, failure modes, or that it is a read-only operation.
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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource.
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 tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, objection details) or error handling (e.g., invalid format, network issues). Given the simplicity, more completeness is needed.
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% (both parameters are fully described in the schema). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it repeats 'EU VAT' context but adds no new semantic details.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Verify EU VAT number via VIES (European Commission free API).' It uses a specific verb (Verify) and resource (EU VAT number), and distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like validate_iban and validate_nif.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other validation tools for different entities). No when-not-to-use instructions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!