text_echoReceives plain text (max 256 chars for Free tier, up to 100kb for Premium) and returns it as echo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool echoes back the input text and discloses character limits by tier. This covers key behavioral traits such as input size constraints and nondestructive echo behavior, though it could mention if it’s idempotent or has other side effects.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the tool’s purpose, and every part is necessary. 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?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but true), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers input constraints (size limits) and the basic echo behavior, which is sufficient for such a simple tool. The tool's low complexity and presence of output schema make this description complete.
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%, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'text' parameter by mentioning 'plain text' and adds meaning with size limits. However, it does not explicitly define the parameter name or type beyond what the schema provides. This adds some value but not full compensation.
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 that the tool receives plain text and returns it as an echo. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'json_echo', which presumably handles JSON input. The verb 'returns' and the specific resource 'text echo' are well-defined.
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 provides tier-based size limits (256 chars for Free, 100kb for Premium), offering context on when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over 'json_echo' or provide exclusion guidance. The absence of explicit 'when-not-to-use' notes keeps it from a 5.
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.
The two tools target distinct input types (JSON vs plain text), so there is no ambiguity in choosing between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (json_echo, text_echo), making the naming predictable.
With only 2 tools, the set is minimal but appropriate for a simple echo service; however, it feels thin for a general-purpose server.
The server covers the two main input types (JSON and plain text) for an echo utility, leaving no obvious gaps within its narrow scope.