Increment a semantic version to the next release level: major, minor, patch, premajor, preminor, prepatch, or prerelease. An optional identifier (e.g. beta) seeds/steps the prerelease tag. Returns the resulting version string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | Which segment to increment | patch |
| version | Yes | Starting version, e.g. 1.2.3 | |
| identifier | No | Prerelease identifier, e.g. beta, rc (optional) |
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 present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool returns the resulting version string and that an identifier seeds/steps the prerelease tag, but it does not mention error behavior for invalid versions, whether the function is pure, or how the identifier behaves with non-prerelease levels. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.
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 compact, front-loaded with the action, and free of filler. The enumeration of all seven level values partially duplicates the schema enum, but it is brief and reinforces purpose clarity without becoming bloated.
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 relatively simple pure-function tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operation, available levels, optional identifier behavior, and return value. It lacks explicit handling of malformed versions or edge cases, but it provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the common case.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the identifier parameter ('seeds/steps the prerelease tag') with an example ('beta'), and by clarifying that 'version' is the starting point for the increment. This goes slightly beyond the schema's terse parameter descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb and object ('Increment a semantic version') and enumerates the exact release levels, so an agent knows precisely what the tool does. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like semver_compare, semver_max, and semver_satisfies, which are non-transformational.
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 intended use is implied by the operation name and description, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as semver_compare or semver_satisfies. No exclusions, prerequisites, or routing guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer the use case.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation—encoding, color conversion, parsing, hashing, JWT validation, Markdown rendering, regex testing, SemVer operations, diffing, URL analysis, and UUID generation. The four SemVer tools are related but cleanly separated by action (bump vs compare vs max vs satisfies), and descriptions clarify their boundaries.
Tools overwhelmingly follow an object_verb snake_case convention (base64_encode, csv_parse, regex_test, semver_bump). Semver_max and semver_satisfies deviate slightly from the imperative verb pattern, but the overall naming is predictable and searchable.
At 16 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal 3–15 tool range but each utility earns its place for a general-purpose developer toolbox. No tools feel redundant, and the count remains manageable because the names and domains are highly scannable.
The toolkit covers a solid breadth of common developer utilities: encodings, common formats (JSON, CSV, Markdown), hashing/JWT, regex, SemVer, cron, URL, UUIDs, and diffing. It lacks some fringe converters such as YAML/XML parsing or HTML escape/unescape, but these are minor gaps that agents can work around rather than dead ends.