regex_test
Test regex pattern; returns match, groups, span.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| flags | No | i, m, s | |
| pattern | Yes |
Test regex pattern; returns match, groups, span.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| flags | No | i, m, s | |
| pattern | Yes |
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 provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions return values (match, groups, span) but not side effects, error handling, or performance. The tool is likely pure, but this is not stated.
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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it is minimal. Every word is used, but it could be more informative without adding bulk.
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 3 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks return format details, error behavior, and usage scenarios, making it insufficient for full understanding.
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 meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 33% (only 'flags' has a description). The parameters 'pattern' and 'text' are not explained, and flags are only listed as 'i, m, s' in the schema without usage details.
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?
Clearly states 'Test regex pattern; returns match, groups, span.' The verb 'test' and resource 'regex pattern' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling 'regex_replace' which is for replacement, but does not explicitly differentiate from other extraction 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 or not use this tool versus alternatives like 'regex_replace' or extraction tools. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
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.