Skip to main content
Glama

Tools for Agents

by io.github.max124vip-dev

seo_audit

SEO title/meta/H1 checklist

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPage URL
timeoutNo

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 / timeout
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 20,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / url
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Page URL",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[]New value: +[
+  "url"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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 of explaining behavioral aspects. The description only mentions 'checklist' with no indication of whether it makes network requests, what it verifies, how it handles failures, or any side effects. This is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is very short but at the expense of clarity. It is an incomplete sentence rather than a concise, complete thought. Unlike well-crafted concise descriptions, it does not effectively communicate a single clear action.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the checklist contains, what the tool returns, and any potential side effects. The bare fragment provides none of this, leaving the agent without enough information to select the tool for a task. It is inadequate for a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema covers only 50% of parameters (url), leaving timeout undocumented. The description adds no parameter details: it does not explain the timeout's meaning or how the url is used. At 0% additional parameter context, the description fails to compensate for the schema's low coverage.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'SEO title/meta/H1 checklist' is a noun phrase lacking any verb, so it does not clearly state what the tool does. It names three SEO elements but could mean generating a checklist, checking a page, or auditing—without the tool name, the purpose would be ambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like 'page_metadata' or 'crawl'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide any context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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