Create an array filled with a value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | Value to fill | |
| length | Yes | Array length |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| array | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| length | Yes |
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 carries the full burden. It only states 'Create an array filled with a value,' which is obvious from the name. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or what the return format is beyond implied array creation.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence that conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place, and there is no waste. The structure is appropriate for such a simple tool.
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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, both documented in schema), the description is largely sufficient. The output schema exists, so return value details are handled separately. The description adequately covers what the tool does, though it could mention that it returns a new array. For a minimal tool, this is complete enough.
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 both parameters already having descriptions in the input schema ('Value to fill' and 'Array length'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context to the parameters, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not exceed it.
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 what the tool does: create an array filled with a value. It is specific and uses a verb+resource structure. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling tools like array_repeat, which also creates arrays by repeating a value.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like array_repeat exist, but no differentiation is offered.
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.
