is_integer
Check if a number is an integer.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | The number to check |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | ||
| is_integer | Yes |
Check if a number is an integer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | The number to check |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | ||
| is_integer | 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 accurately conveys the tool's behavior as a pure check with no side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it is clear but lacks explicit mention of return type, which is mitigated by the output schema existing.
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 that effectively communicates the tool's purpose without any extraneous 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?
For a simple boolean check tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It covers the essential information needed for correct selection and invocation.
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 single parameter 'number' has a schema description 'The number to check', which is clear but generic. The tool description adds the specific purpose of checking for integer status, providing context beyond the parameter name alone. Schema coverage is 100%.
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 'Check if a number is an integer' clearly states the verb (Check) and resource (number, specifically integer status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like is_even or is_positive by focusing on integer detection.
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 such as is_even, is_odd, or is_whole. There are no prerequisites or context about expected input types beyond the schema.
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.