Skip to main content
Glama

Tools for Agents

by io.github.max124vip-dev

line_split

Split text into lines

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesInput text
min_lengthNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / args
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Tool arguments",
-  "properties": {
-    "text": {
-      "description": "Primary input text",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / min_length
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / text
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Input text",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[]New value: +[
+  "text"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and fails to describe how lines are determined (e.g., newline handling, empty lines, trimming) or the effect of 'min_length'. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a concise single sentence that directly conveys the core function. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple text-splitting tool, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks explanation of the 'min_length' parameter and edge-case behavior (e.g., empty lines, trailing newlines), which would be important for correct invocation. The absence of an output schema increases the burden on the description to set expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50%: 'text' is described as 'Input text', but 'min_length' has no description and the tool description does not clarify it. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, leaving 'min_length' undefined and its default behavior unclear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Split text into lines' uses a specific verb ('Split') and resource ('text into lines'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'chunk_text' by focusing on lines rather than arbitrary chunks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 such as 'chunk_text', 'compare_texts', or other text-processing tools. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where this tool is preferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tools for Agents toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools have overlapping or identical purposes, such as ocr_url and ocr_image (both OCR from an image URL), compare_texts and text_diff (both compare or diff texts), extract_url and read_url (both extract webpage content), and content_hash and hash_text (both compute hashes). The boundaries between these tools are unclear, causing a high risk of misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed. Many tools use verb_noun (extract_url, validate_email), but others use noun_verb (language_detect, html_clean), single words (advisor, crawl, retrieve), or noun_noun (job_status, page_metadata). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 100 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for a generic agent toolkit. While some tools are distinct and useful, the sheer number does not align with a focused purpose; many tools are redundant or highly specialized, and the count exceeds what is typically manageable for an agent to reason about.

Completeness3/5

The toolkit covers a broad range of utilities including extraction, validation, processing, research, memory, and orchestration. However, there are no CRUD tools for creating/updating/deleting resources, no database or file system operations, and no integration beyond web/API basics. This leaves significant gaps for agents that need general lifecycle management, though it does handle many common tasks.

Resources