fraction_calculatorA fraction calculator for adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing — exactly. A HelpySelf tool (helpyself.com).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operator | Yes | ||
| fractionA | Yes | ||
| fractionB | 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 are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions 'exactly' hinting at precision but does not disclose output format, error handling, or any side effects. For a calculator tool, the lack of detail on fraction formatting or result representation is a significant gap.
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 short with a useful first sentence, but the second sentence 'A HelpySelf tool (helpyself.com)' is irrelevant to tool usage and adds no value. It is not overly verbose, but the filler prevents a higher score.
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 calculator, the description is incomplete. It does not explain fraction input formats, rounding behavior, or what the result looks like, and there is no output schema to fall back on. The tool lacks critical usage details that an agent would need 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 0%, and the tool description gives no information about the parameters. The schema only specifies types and enum for operator, but it does not clarify how fractions should be expressed (e.g., '3/4' vs decimal). The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.
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 performs addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division on fractions, which is a specific and unambiguous purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling calculators by specifying 'fraction' and the exact operations.
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 description implies usage for fraction arithmetic but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or compare to other calculator tools, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name.
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.
Most tools are clearly single-purpose and described well, but several clusters overlap heavily: image_resizer, bulk_image_resizer, compress_to_size, and image_compressor all address image size or compression, and contrast_checker/contrast_fixer/contrast_grid plus random_picker/wheel_of_names create near-duplicate choices. An agent can often use descriptions to pick, but with 104 tools the boundary between close options is easy to mis-select.
Overall the naming is consistent snake_case with strong noun-operator patterns like pdf_merge, image_converter, and barcode_generator. Minor deviations such as what_is_my_ip, days_until_christmas, send_a_secret, and request_a_file break the pattern slightly, but they remain understandable.
104 tools far exceeds the reasonable scope for a single MCP server and hits the '50+' extreme-mismatch threshold. This creates huge prompt overhead and makes tool selection a major obstacle, especially since most tools are trivial standalone utilities rather than related operations.
The server covers many categories: text, PDFs, images, files, calculations, generators, conversions, and network utilities, and no obvious workflow dead-ends appear within those tools. But because it is a flat grab-bag rather than a scoped domain, several neighboring utility categories are missing or unevenly represented, such as CSS/JS compression, PDF text extraction, and broader date or currency workflows.