Calculate optimal sleep/wake times based on 90-minute sleep cycles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wake_time | No | Desired wake time (HH:MM) | |
| sleep_time | No | Desired sleep time (HH:MM) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| wake_time | No | ||
| sleep_time | No | ||
| fall_asleep_time | No | ||
| recommended_bed_times | No | ||
| recommended_wake_times | 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, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions the algorithm basis (90-minute cycles) but doesn't explain default behavior when no parameters are provided, side effects, or assumptions about the calculation.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.
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 an available output schema (context indicates 'Has output schema: true'), the description is adequate but lacks detail on parameter interactions or edge cases. It does not explain what 'optimal' means or how the calculation handles missing parameters.
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% and parameter descriptions are clear ('Desired wake time (HH:MM)', 'Desired sleep time (HH:MM)'). The description adds no new meaning beyond restating the purpose. It does not clarify the relationship between the two parameters, e.g., what happens if both are given or just one.
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 ('Calculate') and the resource ('optimal sleep/wake times') with a specific method ('based on 90-minute sleep cycles'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are general math or conversion functions.
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 others, nor any prerequisites or conditions. For example, it does not mention that at least one parameter (wake_time or sleep_time) should be provided, or what happens if both are given.
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.
