aspect_ratio_calculatorSimplify a width×height ratio and scale to a new width or height. Runs on smart-tools.xyz.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | Yes | Original width | |
| height | Yes | Original height | |
| locale | No | Language for the source_url link (default en) | |
| new_width | No | Optional: target width → returns matching height | |
| new_height | No | Optional: target height → returns matching width |
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 states the core behavior (simplify and scale) but does not disclose edge cases, rounding behavior, precedence rules when both new_width and new_height are provided, or output format. Some behavioral context is present but the picture is incomplete.
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 and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the sentence 'Runs on smart-tools.xyz' is extraneous and does not help an AI agent select or invoke the tool. It is concise but includes a minor filler.
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 a tool with 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explicitly state what the return value looks like (e.g., the simplified ratio or scaled dimension). The schema hints at outputs via parameter descriptions, but the tool description itself is incomplete.
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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond the schema; it only hints at the relationship between original and target dimensions but does not elaborate on parameter values, defaults, or constraints.
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 simplifies a width×height ratio and scales to a new width or height. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling calculators like fraction_calculator or triangle_calculator.
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 clear context for when to use the tool (simplifying/scaling aspect ratios) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion rules. The use case is obvious, but no 'vs alternatives' guidance is given.
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 distinct, but there are notable overlaps. 'hash_generator' and 'file_hash' effectively do the same thing (SHA hashing of text), and several CSV/TSV converters (csv_to_json, csv_to_sql, table_to_csv, markdown_table) have similar input handling, though outputs differ. The sheer number of converters is clear, but these near-duplicates create some ambiguity.
Names follow a generally consistent pattern: lowercase with underscores, often ending in 'converter', 'calculator', or 'generator'. A few names like 'base64', 'lorem_ipsum', and 'transliteration' deviate from the suffix pattern, but the naming style is uniform and predictable overall.
With 73 tools, this server is far over the typical well-scoped range. While the broad utility-toolkit purpose might justify a larger set, 73 is unwieldy and pushes well into 'too many' territory, making it harder for an agent to select the right tool efficiently.
The server covers a remarkably wide range of common utilities: unit conversions, calculators, text transformations, development helpers (JSON, regex, JWT, subnet), and generators. Minor gaps exist (e.g., currency converter, time zone converter), but for a general-purpose toolkit, it is largely comprehensive.