Generate a memorable password based on a pattern.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | No | Pattern: c=consonant, v=vowel, d=digit, s=symbol | cvccvc |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| length | Yes | ||
| pattern | Yes | ||
| password | 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 full burden. It only states 'based on a pattern' without detailing behavior like minimum length, allowed characters, or whether it guarantees memorability. The parameter description in the schema adds pattern syntax, but the tool description itself adds negligible behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence with clear verb and resource. Front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words. Perfectly sized for 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?
Tool has low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema). Description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks indication of return value format (e.g., string) and omits usage guidance. Could be more complete for an agent to anticipate output and behavior.
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 description coverage is 100%: the pattern parameter includes 'Pattern: c=consonant, v=vowel, d=digit, s=symbol'. The tool description adds no further semantic value beyond this baseline, earning a neutral score.
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?
Clearly states it generates a memorable password based on a pattern. The verb 'generate' and resource 'memorable password' are specific. It implies distinction from other password generators (e.g., generate_password) by emphasizing pattern-based generation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_password, generate_passphrase, or generate_pin. With many sibling password tools, the absence of selection criteria makes it unclear for an AI agent when to invoke this one.
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.
