Get regex pattern for URL validation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| require_protocol | No | Require http/https protocol |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| strict | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| pattern | Yes | ||
| version | No | ||
| examples | No | ||
| card_type | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| case_insensitive | No | ||
| require_protocol | No | ||
| format_description | 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 provides minimal behavioral context. It does not state whether the regex includes protocol, case sensitivity, or any special behavior. The agent is left guessing about the output format beyond the input schema.
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?
Extremely concise (one sentence) with no filler. However, it could be slightly more detailed without harming conciseness. Still efficient.
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 presence of an output schema and high schema coverage, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context on the pattern's purpose or how it differs from similar pattern tools. Adequate but not rich.
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% (single parameter with description). The description adds no value beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?
Clearly states it retrieves a regex pattern for URL validation. The verb 'Get' and resource 'regex pattern for URL validation' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools that get other patterns (e.g., get_email_pattern, get_phone_pattern) or validate URLs directly (e.g., validate_url, is_valid_url).
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 validate_url or is_valid_url. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclude scenarios where other tools are more appropriate.
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.
