Get the quarter for a date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datetime_str | Yes | Datetime in ISO format |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| quarter | No | ||
| datetime | No | ||
| quarter_end | No | ||
| quarter_name | No | ||
| quarter_start | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states a read operation. It fails to disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid dates, boundary values like Dec 31), the return format, or whether quarter numbering is calendar-based or fiscal.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity sacrifices helpful context that could be included without much length, such as output format or example.
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's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits details like quarter system (calendar vs fiscal), return type, and handling of edge cases, which are important for correct usage.
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% (datetime_str described as 'Datetime in ISO format'), but the description adds no extra meaning. It does not clarify what 'quarter' means (e.g., 1-4, or with year?), leaving ambiguity that the schema alone cannot resolve.
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 'Get the quarter for a date' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (quarter), making its purpose unmistakable. It semantically distinguishes itself from sibling date functions like day_of_year or is_leap_year.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, acceptable date formats beyond ISO, or how it differs from similar date extraction tools like date_diff or week_number.
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.
