Calculate subnets from a network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | Yes | Network in CIDR notation | |
| new_prefix | Yes | New prefix length for subnets |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| subnets | No | ||
| truncated | No | ||
| new_prefix | No | ||
| total_subnets | No | ||
| original_prefix | No | ||
| hosts_per_subnet | No | ||
| original_network | 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?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the implied calculation. It fails to state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the output represents.
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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices informative content for brevity. It is not a model of conciseness because it lacks key details that would help an agent.
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 presence of an output schema and the complexity of subnetting, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output contains (e.g., list of subnets, network addresses), constraints on inputs (e.g., valid prefix ranges), or the relationship between network and new_prefix.
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 has 100% description coverage, with clear param descriptions ('Network in CIDR notation', 'New prefix length for subnets'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema itself is adequate.
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 'Calculate subnets from a network' is a tautology of the tool name and does not specify what a subnet calculation entails. It lacks differentiation from sibling tools like network_info, cidr_info, or supernet_calculator.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
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.
