quotesFetch a paginated list of fake inspirational quotes from DummyJSON. Supports limit and skip. Returns quote text and author name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of quotes skipped | |
| limit | No | Limit of quotes returned | |
| total | No | Total quote count | |
| quotes | No | List of quotes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 10
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "limit": {
+ "description": "Limit of quotes returned",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "quotes": {
+ "description": "List of quotes",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "author": {
+ "description": "Quote author",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Quote ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "quote": {
+ "description": "Quote text",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "skip": {
+ "description": "Number of quotes skipped",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "description": "Total quote count",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it is paginated, supports limit/skip, and returns quote text and author. No contradictions.
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 efficient sentences with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded and directly stated.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are already defined. The description adds minimal context but is sufficient for a simple paginated list tool.
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 0%. The description mentions 'limit and skip' for pagination, adding meaning beyond property names, but lacks details like constraints or defaults.
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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'paginated list of fake inspirational quotes' from DummyJSON. It is distinct from sibling tools like posts or comments.
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 description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.
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, e.g., multiple tools for data retrieval (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile) that differ only in nuance, and the inclusion of both DummyJSON and Pipeworx tools creates confusion about which domain to use for what. Agents will struggle to select the correct tool.
Naming conventions are mixed: Pipeworx tools use diverse patterns (verb_noun like 'validate_claim', noun like 'entity_profile', verb like 'forget'), while DummyJSON tools use simple nouns (posts, comments). No consistent pattern across the set.
43 tools is excessive for a server named 'Dummyjson'. The majority are Pipeworx tools unrelated to fake data, making the set feel bloated and unfocused. The count is too large for the apparent scope.
For a fake data API, the set is incomplete: it only provides read operations (fetch, search) with no create, update, or delete capabilities. However, for the Pipeworx portion, the read coverage is extensive, so it's not severely lacking overall.