Calculate break-even point.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fixed_costs | Yes | Fixed costs | |
| cost_per_unit | Yes | Variable cost per unit | |
| price_per_unit | Yes | Price per unit |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| fixed_costs | No | ||
| cost_per_unit | No | ||
| price_per_unit | No | ||
| break_even_units | No | ||
| break_even_revenue | No | ||
| contribution_margin | 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, and the description omits behavioral details such as whether the tool is read-only, what the output represents, or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent unclear about the return value.
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—one short sentence with no wasted words. However, this brevity sacrifices necessary detail for completeness.
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 has three required numeric parameters and an output schema, the description should explain the formula or output format. It fails to mention the break-even formula or the result type, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
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?
The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 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 'Calculate' and the resource 'break-even point', indicating a specific financial metric. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'calculate_margin' or 'calculate_profit', which are related but distinct.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., calculate_margin, calculate_markup). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate usage.
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.
