Decode geohash to coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| geohash | Yes | Geohash string |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| geohash | Yes | ||
| lat_error | Yes | ||
| lon_error | 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?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic decode operation. There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It fails to mention output format (e.g., [lat, lng]), precision, or handling of invalid geohash strings.
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 five words, front-loading the purpose. While minimal, it contains no fluff and is appropriate for a straightforward tool. Could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness.
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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent the core purpose, but lacks details on output structure or behavior. The output schema helps, but description could be more complete.
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 parameter 'geohash' is described as 'Geohash string' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 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 'Decode geohash to coordinates' uses a specific verb (Decode) and resource (geohash) and states the output (coordinates). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'geohash_encode' which encodes coordinates to geohash.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or when not to use it. The tool is one of many geographic tools, so usage context is lacking.
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.
