Get difference of two arrays (items in array1 not in array2).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| array1 | Yes | First comma-separated array | |
| array2 | Yes | Second comma-separated array |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| union | No | ||
| array1 | Yes | ||
| array2 | Yes | ||
| difference | No | ||
| intersection | No | ||
| symmetric_difference | No |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the core difference operation, but omits critical details like duplicate handling, ordering preservation, and comparison rules (e.g., case sensitivity). This insufficient transparency could lead to incorrect invocation.
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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the basic purpose, but lacks edge-case behavior and usage guidance. An output schema exists but is not shown; the description does not need to detail return values. However, the absence of behavioral nuance and lack of sibling differentiation reduces completeness.
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% (both parameters have clear descriptions: 'First comma-separated array' and 'Second comma-separated array'). The tool description adds the operation context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get difference of two arrays (items in array1 not in array2)'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('difference of two arrays'), and distinguishes from siblings like array_intersection and array_symmetric_difference by specifying the operation direction.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling array operations (e.g., array_intersection, array_symmetric_difference), the lack of when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions makes it harder for the agent to select correctly.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple random generators (random_integer, random_number), duplicate hashing functions (hash_md5, md5_checksum), and near-identical tools (compare, compare_2, compare_decimals). The sheer number of tools and lack of clear boundaries make it difficult for an agent to differentiate.
Naming is highly inconsistent. There are duplicate tools with different names (camel_case vs to_camel_case, slug vs slugify), arbitrary suffixes like '_2', and mixing of patterns (e.g., generate_password vs password_entropy). No clear convention is followed.
With 572 tools, the server is massively overpopulated for any coherent purpose. It includes trivial endpoints (true_endpoint, null, hello_world) and numerous duplicates, far exceeding a well-scoped utility set.
While the server covers many domains (math, strings, dates, colors, etc.), the presence of duplicate and trivial tools indicates a lack of thoughtful curation. There are gaps in basic operations (e.g., no dedicated file or network tools), and many tools are redundant.
