Skip to main content
Glama

Jinero

by online.jinero

Generate Clamp Tool

generate_clamp
Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate a fluid CSS clamp() expression for responsive sizing between two viewport widths. Pure calculation — returns a CSS snippet, writes and stores nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootNoRoot font-size in px for rem conversion (default 16).
unitNoOutput unit (default rem).
max_fsYesMaximum size in px.
max_vwNoViewport width at max_fs (default 1440).
min_fsYesMinimum size in px.
min_vwNoViewport width at min_fs (default 320).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces these by stating 'writes and stores nothing.' It adds the context that the tool returns a CSS snippet, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the side-effect clarification following. Every sentence contributes essential information with no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the schema fully describes all parameters and annotations cover safety, the description is sufficient. It communicates the core function and return type, though it does not detail output formatting, which is acceptable for a pure calculation tool without an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All six parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add parameter-specific details, but the schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's function with the verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'fluid CSS clamp() expression', scoping it to responsive sizing between viewport widths. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing pure calculation and no storage, making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool — for generating a CSS clamp() between two viewport widths — and explicitly states it is a pure calculation. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear to differentiate from sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Jinero toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation within the color, font, or code utility domains. Descriptions clearly differentiate retrieval, search, and action tools, so an agent can reliably select the right one without ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use snake_case and are readable, but there's a mix of direct verb_noun patterns (check_contrast, extract_colors) and a get_ prefix for retrieval tools (get_font, get_palette). The inconsistency is minor and the pattern remains predictable overall.

Tool Count5/5

15 tools is at the upper end of the well-scoped range, but each tool serves a clear, distinct purpose across three focused domains (fonts, colors, code). No tool feels redundant or unnecessary for the server's mission.

Completeness5/5

The server provides a comprehensive lifecycle for its domains: font search, metadata, file access, CSS generation, and image recognition; color extraction, naming, shading, contrast checking, and palette search; and code detection, conversion, and minification. No obvious gaps exist.

Resources