Check if array1 is a subset of array2.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| array1 | Yes | Potential subset | |
| array2 | Yes | Potential superset |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| array1 | Yes | ||
| array2 | Yes | ||
| is_equal | Yes | ||
| is_subset | Yes | ||
| is_superset | 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 must disclose behavioral details, but it only states the basic function. It does not explain return format, treatment of duplicates, handling of empty arrays, or potential errors. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect invocation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It is perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits details about return values, edge cases, and performance. Given the tool's simplicity, some behavioral context (e.g., 'Returns true if array1 is a subset of array2') would improve completeness.
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% with parameter descriptions ('Potential subset' and 'Potential superset'), but the tool description adds no additional meaning. The baseline of 3 is reduced because the description repeats the parameter names without enriching semantics.
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 clearly states the action ('Check if') and the resources ('array1 is a subset of array2'), making the purpose unmistakable. It differentiates from sibling array tools like 'contains' or 'array_intersection' by focusing on the subset relationship. However, the term 'array' in the description slightly conflicts with the schema parameter types (strings), but this does not obscure the core purpose.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'contains', 'array_intersection', or 'array_union'. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use indications, leaving the agent to decide without context.
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.
