add
Add two integers to calculate their sum.
Instructions
Add two numbers.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | ||
| b | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Add two integers to calculate their sum.
Add two numbers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | ||
| b | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (adds numbers) but does not mention return type, side effects, or prerequisites. Minimal but adequate for a trivial operation.
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?
Extremely concise: a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's action. No wasted words.
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?
For a simple tool with two integer inputs and an output schema likely showing the sum, the description is sufficient. Slightly more detail about the return value could improve completeness, but not necessary.
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 0%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the integer type. The parameter names 'a' and 'b' are generic; the description only implies they are numbers to add.
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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'two numbers'. It is unambiguous and specific regarding the tool's purpose.
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 explicit usage guidelines are given, but the simple nature of the tool and absence of siblings make the usage obvious. A minor deduction for lack of explicit when-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kriwet8/mcp-weather-workshop'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server