Replace regex matches in text (supports backreferences in replacement).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| count | No | Max replacements when global | |
| flags | No | i, m, s | |
| pattern | Yes | ||
| replacement | Yes | ||
| global_replace | 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 carries full burden but only mentions backreferences. It does not disclose global replace behavior, error handling, or side effects.
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 is concise but under-specified; it front-loads the action but does not earn its place by adding sufficient value.
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 tool's complexity and absence of output schema and annotations, the description fails to explain return values, parameter interactions, or error conditions.
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 description adds no parameter-specific information despite 4 out of 6 parameters lacking schema descriptions, failing to compensate for low schema coverage.
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 tool replaces regex matches in text and highlights backreference support, effectively distinguishing it from regex_test and other text manipulation 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like regex_test, or any context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.
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.