Generate random date(s) within a range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | 2025-12-31 |
| count | No | Number of dates to generate | |
| start | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | 2020-01-01 |
| format | No | Output format: iso, us, eu, unix | iso |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| code | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| values | 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether dates are unique, distribution type, inclusivity of range, or any side effects.
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 very short (5 words) and to the point, but lacks important details that would make it earn its place. It is not verbose but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.
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 output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description does not explain range inclusivity, uniqueness, or performance, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding for proper 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% with each parameter well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond stating 'within a range', which is already implied by start and end parameters.
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 verb 'generate' and resource 'random date(s)' with the scope 'within a range'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_dates' which may have similar functionality.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no examples, when-not-to-use statements, or context about preference over related tools.
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.
