Check if a number is positive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | The number to check |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | ||
| is_zero | Yes | ||
| is_negative | Yes | ||
| is_positive | 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?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and omits key details: the return type (presumably boolean), behavior for zero (false), edge case handling (e.g., NaN is prevented by schema but not mentioned). The absence of such context reduces transparency.
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, succinct sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately front-loaded.
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 (one parameter, boolean output) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description provides adequate but minimal context. It does not explicitly state the return value format (true/false) or mention any side effects, but the tool's nature makes these relatively obvious. A slightly more complete description would explicitly state the output.
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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with a clear name and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not lower or raise it.
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 positive' clearly states the verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'is_negative' and 'is_zero' through its specific test, but does not explicitly differentiate from other similar checks.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., is_negative, is_zero). It does not provide context such as 'Use to verify positivity before proceeding' or note any prerequisites. This lack of usage direction hinders the agent in selecting the appropriate tool.
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.
