dev_jwt_signCreate and sign a JWT with a given payload and secret.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| secret | Yes | HMAC secret key for signing | |
| payload | Yes | JSON payload to encode in the token | |
| expires_in | No | Token expiration time in seconds |
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?
The description discloses the core behavior of creating and signing a JWT, which is the primary action. However, it adds little beyond the readOnlyHint annotation; for example, it does not mention that the token includes an expiration timestamp or that signing is a pure function. The annotation covers safety, so the description is adequate but not enriching.
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, focused sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It has no filler or redundant wording, earning every character it uses.
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?
The description is minimally complete for a simple tool: it states the action and inputs, and the schema covers parameters. However, it does not mention the return value (the signed token string) or the optional 'expires_in' parameter by name, which could leave an agent unsure about the full output or options.
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?
The input schema provides full coverage for all parameters, including descriptions for payload, secret, and expires_in. The description only repeats 'payload and secret' without adding extra meaning or constraints. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create and sign a JWT with a given payload and secret.' It uses a specific verb ('create and sign') and resource ('JWT'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dev_jwt_verify. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 when to use the tool (whenever a JWT needs to be created) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with dev_jwt_verify. There is no guidance on when not to use it, which is a missed opportunity given the sibling context.
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 tools are grouped into clear categories (dev, lookup, security, text, transform), which helps with disambiguation, but within categories there is some overlap. For example, lookup_ssl and lookup_ssl_cert_expiry both handle SSL certificates, and dev_url_encode/dev_url_decode are closely related but distinct. Most tools have unique purposes, but a few could be confused without careful reading of descriptions.
The naming follows a consistent snake_case pattern with a clear prefix structure (dev_, lookup_, security_, text_, transform_), which aids in organization. However, there are minor deviations like dev_cron_describe using 'describe' while others use verbs like 'generate' or 'convert', and some tools have longer names that break the verb_noun pattern slightly. Overall, the naming is predictable and readable.
With 49 tools, the count is excessive for a utility server, making it overwhelming and likely to cause confusion or inefficiency. While the tools cover many use cases, a more focused set of 15-25 tools would be more manageable and better scoped. The high number suggests feature bloat rather than a coherent, minimal surface.
The tool set is highly complete for its utility and development support domain, covering a wide range of operations from data transformation and security to lookups and text processing. There are no obvious gaps; each category provides comprehensive coverage, such as full text encoding/decoding, security functions, and various lookup capabilities, ensuring agents can handle diverse tasks without dead ends.