Interleave two arrays.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| array1 | Yes | First comma-separated array | |
| array2 | Yes | Second comma-separated array |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| array1 | Yes | ||
| array2 | Yes | ||
| interleaved | 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 present, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It only says 'Interleave two arrays' without explaining handling of unequal lengths, empty arrays, or the resulting data structure. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.
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 very concise at four words, front-loading the core action. While it is not verbose, it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming inefficient. Overall, it earns its place but is slightly under-specified for a tool with a specific data format.
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 existence of an output schema (not fully shown), return values may be documented elsewhere, but the description omits important behavioral details such as handling of varying array lengths, order preservation, and error cases. This creates gaps for an agent evaluating the tool.
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 parameter descriptions already stating 'First comma-separated array' and 'Second comma-separated array'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so 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 verb 'interleave' and the resource 'two arrays', making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'array_zip', which performs a similar operation. A score of 4 reflects clear purpose without explicit sibling distinction.
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 like array_zip, array_intersection, etc. No context for when it is appropriate or inappropriate to use is given.
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.
