depreciation-calcStraight-line and declining-balance depreciation schedules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | No | Depreciation method | straight-line |
| usefulLife | Yes | Useful life in years | |
| acquisitionCost | Yes | Acquisition cost in JPY | |
| assetCategoryId | No | Asset category ID (optional) | |
| serviceStartDate | Yes | Service start date (YYYY-MM format) | |
| fiscalYearEndMonth | No | Fiscal year end month (1-12) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / acquisitionCostAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Acquisition cost in JPY",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / assetCategoryIdAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Asset category ID (optional)"
+}Input schema / properties / fiscalYearEndMonthAdded value: +{
+ "default": 3,
+ "description": "Fiscal year end month (1-12)",
+ "maximum": 12,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / methodAdded value: +{
+ "default": "straight-line",
+ "description": "Depreciation method",
+ "enum": [
+ "straight-line",
+ "declining-balance"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / serviceStartDateAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Service start date (YYYY-MM format)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / usefulLifeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Useful life in years",
+ "maximum": 50,
+ "minimum": 2,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "acquisitionCost",
+ "usefulLife",
+ "serviceStartDate"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the two calculation methods, but these are already visible in the schema's method enum. It does not explain the output format, how service start date or fiscal year end affect the schedule, or any rounding/calculation conventions.
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 with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is not a full grammatical sentence, but it effectively front-loads 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?
This is a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain more than just the high-level purpose. It fails to describe the return value, how inputs like serviceStartDate and fiscalYearEndMonth influence the schedule, or any other behavior needed for correct invocation.
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 all six parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 identifies the tool as producing depreciation schedules using two specific methods, which distinguishes it from sibling calculation tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates' or 'generates,' instead using a noun phrase.
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 use case is implied by the name and description: anyone needing straight-line or declining-balance depreciation schedules. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions mentioned.
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.