validate_isbnValidate an ISBN-10 or ISBN-13 (keyless, offline): detects the format and checks the check digit (ISBN-10 uses mod-11 with an "X" for 10). Hyphens/spaces ignored. Validates the number, not the book.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| isbn | Yes | An ISBN-10 or ISBN-13, e.g. "978-0-306-40615-7". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "isbn": "978-0-306-40615-7"
+ },
+ {
+ "isbn": "0-306-40615-2"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare safe read-only behavior. Description adds keyless/offline operation, check digit method, and that it ignores hyphens/spaces, enhancing transparency.
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 no waste, front-loading the core purpose and key details.
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?
No output schema, but description does not specify return type or format, which would help an agent interpret results.
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 covers parameter description, but description adds that hyphens/spaces are ignored, providing extra meaning beyond the schema.
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 explicitly states it validates ISBN-10 or ISBN-13, clearly differentiating from sibling 'convert_isbn' which converts between formats.
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?
Implies usage for validation, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings like 'validate_claim'. Context signals provide no further guidance.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (entity_profile, compare_entities, ask_pipeworx, etc.). However, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar, and suggest_questions/discover_tools overlap slightly. Overall, tools are well-disambiguated with only minor ambiguity.
All tool names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some start with a verb (ask_, validate_), others with a noun (entity_, bet_). Several are noun_noun (entity_profile), and some are single verbs (remember). No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Isbn' that only has 2 ISBN-specific tools. The majority are from Pipeworx, creating scope mismatch. Multiple redundant tools (three ask_pipeworx variants, several polymarket tools) inflate the count unnecessarily.
For a server named 'Isbn', completeness is very low—only conversion and validation are provided; no metadata lookup or other ISBN-related features exist. The Pipeworx tools themselves are comprehensive, but they do not align with the server's implied domain.