Skip to main content
Glama

Tools for Agents

by io.github.max124vip-dev

merge_records

Join record lists by key

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesJoin key field name
records_aYes
records_bYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / args
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Tool arguments",
-  "properties": {
-    "text": {
-      "description": "Primary input text",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Join key field name",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / records_a
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / records_b
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[]New value: +[
+  "records_a",
+  "records_b",
+  "key"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description does not disclose key behavioral aspects such as join type (inner vs outer), duplicate key handling, order preservation, or possible mutation of inputs. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide transparency beyond the basic operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundancy or filler; it earns its place perfectly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a join operation (join semantics, unmatched records, duplicate keys, output format), the one-sentence description is inadequate. No output schema or annotations exist to supplement, leaving the agent without essential information about behavior and results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% (key is described, records_a and records_b are not). The tool description does not compensate: it doesn't explain the roles of records_a vs records_b, expected list structure, or how the key relates to the nested objects. The description merely restates the schema's 'key' notion without adding semantic clarity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Join record lists by key' uses a specific verb (join) on a specific resource (record lists) with a specific mechanism (by key). It clearly distinguishes from siblings as no other tool focuses on joining/merging records, making the core purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The implied usage is to combine two sets of records on a common key, but no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives are given. The context is inferred solely from the tool description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tools for Agents toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools have overlapping or identical purposes, such as ocr_url and ocr_image (both OCR from an image URL), compare_texts and text_diff (both compare or diff texts), extract_url and read_url (both extract webpage content), and content_hash and hash_text (both compute hashes). The boundaries between these tools are unclear, causing a high risk of misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed. Many tools use verb_noun (extract_url, validate_email), but others use noun_verb (language_detect, html_clean), single words (advisor, crawl, retrieve), or noun_noun (job_status, page_metadata). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 100 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for a generic agent toolkit. While some tools are distinct and useful, the sheer number does not align with a focused purpose; many tools are redundant or highly specialized, and the count exceeds what is typically manageable for an agent to reason about.

Completeness3/5

The toolkit covers a broad range of utilities including extraction, validation, processing, research, memory, and orchestration. However, there are no CRUD tools for creating/updating/deleting resources, no database or file system operations, and no integration beyond web/API basics. This leaves significant gaps for agents that need general lifecycle management, though it does handle many common tasks.

Resources