qiblaQibla direction (compass bearing toward the Kaaba in Mecca) for a given latitude/longitude, in degrees from true north.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | Latitude in decimal degrees. | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude in decimal degrees. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "latitude": 51.5074,
+ "longitude": -0.1278
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, covering safety and idempotency. Description adds that output is in degrees from true north, which is behaviorally relevant. 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?
Single sentence that front-loads the key purpose and output format. No unnecessary words, every part earns its place.
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 calculation with well-annotated safety profile and complete schema, the description is adequate. No output schema but return value is implied; could mention precision, but not crucial.
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 100% with clear explanations for latitude and longitude. Description does not add additional meaning beyond restating that parameters are latitude/longitude. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool computes qibla direction (compass bearing toward Kaaba) from latitude/longitude in degrees from true north. This is specific and distinguishes from siblings like prayer_times which also use location but for different purpose.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, the description is self-explanatory enough that the context of needing qibla direction makes usage clear. Siblings like prayer_times and convert_to_hijri handle related but distinct tasks, but no comparison is provided.
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, though there is some overlap between `ai_visibility_check` and `scan_competitor_ai_presence`, and between `bet_research` and `polymarket_edges`. Overall, an agent can distinguish them.
Tool names follow snake_case but vary in prefix usage (e.g., `pipeworx_*`, `polymarket_*`, no prefix) and verb presence (e.g., `discover_tools` vs. `generate_llms_txt`). The pattern is readable but inconsistent.
With 24 tools, the server is overloaded for the 'Prayer Times' name. Many tools are unrelated to prayer, suggesting poor scoping relative to the server's implied purpose.
For prayer times, the server includes core tools but lacks features like multi-day forecasts or advanced settings. However, the inclusion of many unrelated tools makes the set incoherent and incomplete for any single domain.