Calculate destination point given start, bearing, and distance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Starting latitude | |
| lon | Yes | Starting longitude | |
| unit | No | Unit: km or mi | km |
| bearing | Yes | Bearing in degrees | |
| distance | Yes | Distance to travel |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit | Yes | ||
| origin | Yes | ||
| bearing | Yes | ||
| distance | Yes | ||
| destination | 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, and the description gives minimal behavioral insight beyond the operation. It does not disclose assumptions (e.g., Earth model, coordinate system), precision, edge cases (e.g., near poles), or that it is a pure computation with no side effects. The description carries the full burden but is too brief.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and inputs. There is no wasted information, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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?
The tool has an output schema (presumed to define the return value), so the description does not need to detail that. However, it lacks context about calculation method, units consistency, or typical use cases. For a simple math tool, it is adequate but not thorough.
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%, and the schema already describes each parameter (e.g., 'Starting latitude', 'Bearing in degrees'). The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 3.
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 specific action ('calculate destination point') and the required inputs (start, bearing, distance). This helps distinguish it from siblings like 'distance' (which calculates the distance between two points) and 'calculate_bearing' (which calculates the bearing between two points).
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. For instance, it does not mention that this tool is for finding a point given a start and direction, while siblings like 'haversine_distance' or 'calculate_midpoint' serve different purposes. The agent is left to infer usage without explicit direction.
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.
