crc32Compute the CRC-32 (IEEE) checksum of UTF-8 text — the algorithm used by zip/gzip/PNG. Returns the unsigned 32-bit value and its hex form. Keyless, offline. (Error-detection checksum, not cryptographic.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text to checksum. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "text": "Hello, World!"
+ },
+ {
+ "text": "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds that it works offline, requires no keys, and returns both unsigned 32-bit and hex values. No contradiction.
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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence covers purpose, algorithm, and output format. Second adds usage constraints. Ideal length.
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 deterministic function with one input and no output schema, the description covers algorithm, output type, and usage caveats completely.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by specifying 'UTF-8 text' input, which is beyond the schema's 'The text to checksum.' The single parameter is well-documented.
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 computes CRC-32 checksum of UTF-8 text, names the algorithm (IEEE) and its common uses (zip/gzip/PNG), and distinguishes it from sibling 'adler32' by specifying the algorithm type.
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?
Explicitly states 'Keyless, offline. (Error-detection checksum, not cryptographic.)' guiding the agent to use it for error detection only, not security. Could mention sibling adler32 as alternative but not necessary.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in the prediction market domain (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) and data querying (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research). This overlap creates confusion for an agent selecting the right tool.
Naming is inconsistent: most tools use snake_case but some start with a verb (ask_, bet_, compare_) while others start with a noun (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_*). There is no uniform pattern, making it harder to predict tool names.
With 32 tools, the server is overstuffed for a single focus. It bundles checksums, AI visibility, data queries, prediction market analysis, subscriptions, memory, and more, which would be better split into separate, more focused servers.
Despite the large tool count, the server lacks completeness in key areas: no tool to place prediction market trades, no direct SEC filing detail extraction (only through generic queries), and only two checksum tools despite the server name 'Crc'. The surface feels scattershot rather than comprehensive.