From Roman
from_romanConvert a Roman numeral to an integer (rejects malformed numerals).
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roman | Yes | A Roman numeral, e.g. "MCMXCIV". |
from_romanConvert a Roman numeral to an integer (rejects malformed numerals).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roman | Yes | A Roman numeral, e.g. "MCMXCIV". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "roman": "MCMXCIV"
+ },
+ {
+ "roman": "XLII"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool 'rejects malformed numerals', which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given the simple parameter and the presence of annotations, the description covers the main function and validation. Lacks details on return value or error handling, but acceptable for a low-complexity 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter description. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 converts a Roman numeral to an integer and mentions rejection of malformed numerals. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'to_roman'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use.
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.