Skip to main content
Glama
GonTwVn

GonMCPtool

by GonTwVn
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

add

Perform addition calculations by inputting two numbers to get their sum. This tool handles basic arithmetic operations for mathematical computations.

Instructions

簡單的加法計算工具

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aYes
bYes

Implementation Reference

  • main.ts:26-31 (registration)
    Registration of the 'add' tool using server.tool, including inline schema and handler.
    server.tool("add", "簡單的加法計算工具",
    { a: z.number(), b: z.number() },
    async ({ a, b }) => ({
        content: [{ type: "text", text: String(a + b) }]
    })
);
  • main.ts:27-27 (schema)
    Zod schema defining input parameters a and b as numbers.
    { a: z.number(), b: z.number() },
  • main.ts:28-30 (handler)
    Handler function that adds the two input numbers and returns the result as a text content block.
    async ({ a, b }) => ({
    content: [{ type: "text", text: String(a + b) }]
})

Tool Definition Quality

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it's a 'simple addition calculation tool,' which implies a read-only mathematical operation without side effects. However, it doesn't specify whether it handles integer/decimal numbers, error conditions (e.g., overflow), performance characteristics, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single phrase ('簡單的加法計算工具'), which is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core function. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the basic purpose without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., sum as a number), error handling, or how it fits with the sibling tools (e.g., whether it's for mathematical operations within code contexts). For a basic tool, more context about behavior and integration would be helpful.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters (a and b) with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. However, since there are only 2 parameters and the tool's purpose is clearly addition, the parameters can be inferred as the two numbers to add. This provides minimal but adequate semantic context, aligning with the baseline for low parameter count.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description '簡單的加法計算工具' (simple addition calculation tool) clearly states the tool's function as performing addition, which is a specific verb (addition) on unspecified resources (numbers). However, it doesn't distinguish this mathematical operation from the many file/code/task management sibling tools, leaving the scope ambiguous. The purpose is understandable but lacks precision about what kind of addition this is (mathematical vs. other types).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools focused on code editing, file operations, localization, npm tasks, and task management, there's no indication whether this tool is for mathematical calculations in a specific context (e.g., within code files) or general arithmetic. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/GonTwVn/GonMCPtool'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server