Skip to main content
Glama

Flip Coins

flip_coins
Read-onlyIdempotent

Pipeworx dice engine: flip fair coins with real randomness — up to 1,000 per call. Returns the sequence (H/T), heads and tails counts, and the longest run. Omit seed for fresh flips; pass the returned seed to reproduce them exactly. The outcome is random — the calling agent decides what it means.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "count": 10
    },
    "name": "flip_coins"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seedNoOptional seed. Same seed + same count = same flips. Omit for fresh flips; the seed used is always returned.
countNoNumber of coins to flip (default 1, max 1000).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral value the annotations don't: return shape (H/T sequence, counts, longest run), seed reproducibility contract, and that the randomness carries no intrinsic meaning. No output schema exists, so this disclosure matters and is well done.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences with the cap and return fields front-loaded, then the seed control, then the interpretation caveat. No filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description supplies the return values, and it explains the seed contract and the interpretation responsibility. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the seed reproducibility rule and the 1-1000 bound. The description restates rather than extends this, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('flip fair coins') plus a scale limit (up to 1,000 per call), which is clear on its own. It does not name or distinguish itself from the closely related siblings roll_dice and dice_odds, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit usage mechanics: omit `seed` for fresh flips, pass a returned seed to reproduce exactly, and notes the agent owns interpretation of the random result. It lacks guidance on when to choose this over roll_dice or dice_odds, so no true alternatives routing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.