Skip to main content
Glama

LCM of two integers, numbers discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

lcm-ok

LCM of two integers, numbers discarded

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoGit ref name; discarded after the shape check
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
cityNoCity name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call
feedNoPublic RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
pathNoFile path to check; no disk access
zoneNoIANA timezone name
queryNoSearch text; discarded after the length check
websiteNoPublic https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / website
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

D1.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'numbers discarded'—an irrelevant statement since no numeric parameters exist. It does not explain side effects, return values, error behavior, or resource implications. The description is essentially empty on behavioral disclosure.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is short, but brevity is not conciseness when the sentence is misleading and omits essential information. It provides no useful structure or front-loaded actionable content; it is under-specified rather than efficiently written.

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

Completeness1/5

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

This tool has ten optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must work hard to contextualize the operation. Instead it gives an unrelated mathematical statement with no mapping to parameters, no behavioral detail, and no selection guidance. It is completely inadequate for safe or correct invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Although the schema itself provides 100% parameter descriptions, the tool description contradicts the schema by referring to 'two integers' when all ten parameters are strings with unrelated meanings (URL, city, JSON, path, etc.). It does not help map any parameter to the supposed operation, and it undermines the schema's clarity.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description claims the tool computes the LCM of two integers, but the input schema contains ten string parameters with no numeric or integer fields. It neither names a clear verb+resource consistent with the schema nor differentiates it from the many sibling validator tools. The description is actively misleading about what the tool accepts.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any sibling such as browser-url-ok, validate-json, or normalize-url. The description does not mention contexts, exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent cannot determine appropriate invocation conditions.

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

All LCM of two integers, numbers discarded toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources