code-formatterFormat source code using Prettier. Supports JS, TS, CSS, HTML, JSON, YAML, Markdown, GraphQL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Source code to format | |
| semi | No | Add semicolons (JS/TS) | |
| useTabs | No | Use tabs instead of spaces | |
| language | No | Programming language | typescript |
| tabWidth | No | Tab width in spaces | |
| printWidth | No | Line width before wrapping | |
| singleQuote | No | Use single quotes (JS/TS) | |
| trailingComma | No | Trailing comma style | es5 |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Format source code' implies a pure transformation, but it does not disclose return value, error behavior on invalid input, or configuration defaults beyond the schema. Adequate but with gaps.
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 states the purpose, engine, and supported languages without redundancy. Every word 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 a straightforward formatter with a comprehensive schema covering all parameters. No output schema exists, and the description omits explicit return/error details, but the purpose and inputs are sufficiently clear for effective use.
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 each of the 8 parameters is already documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond listing supported languages, which are also in the schema's language enum. 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 uses a specific verb ('Format'), identifies the resource ('source code'), and names the engine ('Prettier') plus the supported languages. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sql-formatter, which is not in the supported language list.
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 supported language list provides clear context for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., SQL via sql-formatter), but the context is unambiguous for standard code formatting.
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 tools have overlapping purposes, such as bg-remover, bg-remover-pro, pro-matting, and takumi all performing background removal, and upscaler/upscaler-pro being redundant. With 202 tools, an agent may easily select the wrong one despite detailed descriptions.
Most tools use a consistent kebab-case format with descriptive names like pdf-compress, image-resizer, and tax-return-calc. Exceptions like 'takumi', 'pro-matting', and '-pro' suffixes (bg-remover-pro, upscaler-pro) are minor deviations relative to the total.
202 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server, far exceeding the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. The sheer volume makes it unwieldy for an agent to efficiently navigate and select the right tool.
The tool set provides extensive coverage across many domains, including PDF operations (20+ tools), image editing, financial calculations, e-commerce fee estimation, and YouTube utilities. Minor gaps exist in cross-tool integration, but the breadth is highly comprehensive for the apparent purpose.