Archive Converter — Convert between archive formats. Input: ZIP, RAR, 7Z, GZ/TAR.GZ, TAR.BZ2, TAR.XZ, TAR, CAB, ISO — recognized by filename extension or file signature, so misnamed uploads work. Output: ZIP, TAR, TAR.GZ, TAR.BZ2, TAR.XZ, 7Z. [category: convert]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Output archive format. Field name is 'to' — not 'format'. | |
| file | Yes | Archive to convert — ZIP, RAR, 7Z, GZ, TAR, TAR.BZ2, TAR.XZ, CAB, ISO (max 200MB) |
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?
Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so they provide minimal behavioral signal. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: format recognition by filename extension or file signature, meaning misnamed uploads still work. This helps an agent predict behavior beyond the schema.
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 a single, efficient sentence that packs in the purpose, full input list, full output list, and a meaningful behavioral detail (signature detection). No filler or redundancy.
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 two-parameter conversion tool, the description plus schema covers everything needed: input formats, output formats, detection behavior, required parameters, and the `to` enum. No output schema exists, but the simple binary-output nature doesn't require further explanation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both `file` and `to` parameters. The description restates supported formats and detection behavior, but adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('between archive formats'), with explicit input/output format lists. The format enumeration makes it clearly distinct from sibling conversion tools like convert_document or convert_video.
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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: whenever an archive file needs format conversion. It provides supported input and output formats, plus the note about signature-based detection. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are near-identical: octopus_mkdir/octopus_make_folder and octopus_move/octopus_move_file are literal duplicates, analyze_hash/generate_hash both compute hashes, convert_word_to_pdf overlaps convert_document, and photo_compress/photo_compress_to_size plus pdf_thumbnails/pdf_to_images have fuzzy boundaries. The descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other helpfully, but at 144 tools an agent will regularly misselect.
The dominant {category}_{verb}_{object} snake_case pattern (pdf_*, photo_*, convert_*, analyze_*, media_*) is largely consistent and predictable. However, outliers like chatwithyourpdf and describe_image break the category-prefix convention, and the octopus namespace mixes bare verbs (read, write, mkdir) with verb_noun forms (make_folder, move_file, search_meta) inconsistently.
144 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server. The broad scope (PDF, photo, video, audio, conversion, analysis, generation, file storage, web, e-sign) justifies some volume, but the count is inflated by batch and inspect variants (pdf_to_excel + batch + inspect), duplicate tools, and overlapping converters. An agent faces an overwhelming selection surface.
Per-domain coverage is remarkably deep: PDF spans merge/split/compress/protect/unlock/metadata/OCR/watermark and bidirectional conversion; photo covers editing, format conversion, face handling, OCR, and collage; file storage has full CRUD plus search. Minor gaps exist (no audio transcription, no video metadata editing, no deletion of PDF pages is actually covered via pdf_delete_pages) but the surface has no dead ends for its declared domains.
