Convert a number to its ordinal form (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | Number to convert to ordinal |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | ||
| suffix | Yes | ||
| ordinal | 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 for behavioral transparency. The description does not disclose edge cases (e.g., negative numbers, zero, large numbers) or mention that the output is a string. This lack of detail reduces transparency.
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 that is perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary, and there is no superfluous information.
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 low complexity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects, with output schema), the description is fairly complete. However, it could be improved by mentioning that the output is a string and by noting any limitations or special cases, though the output schema likely covers the return type.
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 schema already describes the parameter with 'Number to convert to ordinal'. The description adds value by providing example outputs (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.), which clarifies the expected transformation and helps the agent understand the tool's result format.
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 action (convert a number) and the specific result (ordinal form like 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). It effectively distinguishes from sibling formatting tools like format_number and number_to_words by specifying the exact output format.
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 a clear purpose but does not include explicit when-to-use advice or mention of alternatives. Given the simplicity of the tool, the usage is implied, but there's no guidance on when to use this over other number-related tools like number_to_roman or number_to_words.
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.
