Regex matches with groups, count and a backtracking-risk heuristic ($0.001 USDC on Base, x402)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to search | |
| flags | No | Regex flags (subset of dgimsuy) | |
| pattern | Yes | Regular expression |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the main output elements and a real side effect: the $0.001 USDC cost on Base via x402. It does not mention auth, but nothing in the description suggests a dangerous operation.
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?
The description is one tight sentence with no filler. Core behavior is front-loaded, and the pricing parenthetical is useful extra context rather than padding.
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?
Without an output schema, the description usefully summarizes return categories: matches, groups, count, and a backtracking-risk heuristic. It could be more precise about the exact return shape or the heuristic, but it is adequate for a small utility.
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%, so the baseline is met. The schema already explains pattern, text, and flags; the description adds only high-level return context, not new parameter detail.
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 identifies a specific regex utility: matching text against a pattern and returning groups, a count, and a backtracking-risk heuristic. This distinguishes it from the sibling text utilities without requiring the agent to infer much.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. 'Regex matches...' implies the tool is for regex testing, but the description never states when to select it over other tools or notes any prerequisites.
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.
Each tool has a clear, non-overlapping purpose: catalog lists the paid tools, and the others cover distinct utilities like crypto pricing, email deliverability, hashing, JWT decoding, regex, slugify, UUID generation, and weather. Even the three email-related tools are clearly separated by description: deliverability audit, score, and template.
Most tools follow a lowercase snake_case noun_noun pattern (crypto_price, domain_age, email_grade), but catalog and weather are bare nouns, slugify is verb-based, and jwt_decode is object+verb. The pattern is readable despite the inconsistency, but not uniform.
Thirteen tools is within the reasonable range for a paid micro-tool marketplace, and each tool has its own niche. The presence of a meta-catalog tool plus 12 discrete utilities makes the count feel slightly like a grab-bag, but still well-scoped for the stated purpose.
The advertised surface is a catalog of exactly 12 paid tools, and all 12 utilities are present and functional with free preview routes mentioned. There is no obvious missing operation for a stateless utility collection, though the heterogeneous nature of the tools makes completeness less meaningful than for a focused domain server.