Sign JWT payload (HS* with secret, RS* with private_key PEM).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| header | No | Optional extra JWT header fields | |
| secret | No | ||
| payload | Yes | Claims object or JSON string | |
| algorithm | No | HS256 | |
| private_key | No | PEM private key for RS algorithms |
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, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the key types and algorithm families, but omits details like output format (signed token), error handling, or that secret/key are required for respective algorithms.
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 with front-loaded purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates core function.
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?
Despite a short description, the tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. Missing details like the signed JWT format and default algorithm reduce completeness for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 description coverage is 60%, and the description adds context on algorithm-key relationships (HS* uses secret, RS* uses private_key PEM). However, it does not explain the 'algorithm' default or 'header' usage beyond what the schema already states.
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 clearly states the tool signs a JWT payload and distinguishes algorithm families (HS*, RS*) with key types, which differentiates it from sibling decoding/verifying tools.
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 verb 'Sign' implies the primary use case, and the description mentions algorithm families, but it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or name alternatives.
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.
Every tool has a clear, distinct purpose with thorough descriptions. Even closely related tools like base64_decode/encode and hash_md5/sha256 are easily differentiated by name and description.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase_underscore naming convention, typically in a <domain>_<action> or <action>_<domain> pattern. There are no jarring deviations or mixed styles.
193 tools is an extreme count, far beyond what any focused server needs. While each tool has utility, the sheer number creates a kitchen-sink effect that overwhelms agents and hinders discoverability.
Within each subdomain (JSON, cron, JWT, etc.), the coverage is exhaustive, covering validation, conversion, parsing, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., YAML-to-TOML conversion missing), but overall it is remarkably complete.