Round a number to specified decimal places.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | The number to round | |
| decimals | No | Number of decimal places |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| floor | Yes | ||
| number | Yes | ||
| ceiling | Yes | ||
| rounded | Yes | ||
| decimals | 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 carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not specify the rounding method (e.g., half-up, half-even) or behavior on edge cases like negative numbers, which is a gap for a tool that performs a precise mathematical operation.
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?
Single sentence, no filler, gets straight to the point. Perfectly concise and 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?
For a simple rounding tool with a complete schema and output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the core behavior, though missing rounding method details. The tool is straightforward, so the gap is minor.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'specified decimal places' loosely echoes the schema's description of 'decimals', adding minimal semantic value. It does not clarify constraints like maximum decimals or how zero decimals is handled.
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?
Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Round a number' with the key detail of 'to specified decimal places'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ceil and floor which do not take a decimals parameter and perform different rounding.
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 implies use for rounding to a specific precision. Although it does not explicitly mention alternatives like floor or ceil, the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it based on the need for decimal places.
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.
