echo-server.echo
Destructive
Returns whatever you send
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to echo |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Response from the tool |
agentdevx
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark this as destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description only says 'Returns whatever you send' with no mention of side effects or why this might be destructive. It doesn't directly contradict the annotations, but it misses the chance to clarify an operation that appears read-only on the surface.
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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It conveys the essential behavior immediately and earns its place in the definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter echo operation with an output schema, the description plus schema covers the basic mechanics. However, the destructiveHint annotation is left unexplained, and no usage context or caution is provided, so an agent could call this tool without understanding its potential side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the single 'text' parameter with the description 'Text to echo'. The tool-level description reinforces that the text is what gets returned, but adds no new semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, this is the appropriate baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's core behavior: it returns the input text back to the caller. This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that unambiguously identifies an echo operation. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is obvious enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of typical use cases, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer from the name and description alone, which is inadequate for routing between many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools are clearly namespaced by service (e.g., petstore-api, github-api, jsonplaceholder), which reduces cross-service confusion. Within each service, operations are generally distinct (e.g., getPetById vs updatePet). However, some overlap exists like updatePet and updatePetWithForm, and there are multiple 'get' tools across services that could be mixed up in a large set, but descriptions help.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are inconsistent across the set. Some tools use camelCase (github-api.getRepo), others use underscores (acme-mailer.send_email), and some are single simple verbs (echo-server.echo, memory.store). While each service follows its own style, the server as a whole lacks a unified pattern, making the naming chaotic.
Tool Count2/5
With 38 tools, this server is heavily overloaded for a typical MCP scope. The tools span ten different services, indicating a broad aggregation rather than a focused purpose. This exceeds the recommended 3-15 tool range and even the 25+ threshold, making it feel like a collection of unrelated utilities.
Completeness2/5
The domain is unclear, but looking at each sub-service, most are incomplete. For example, github-api only offers read operations (no create/update/delete), jsonplaceholder has posts CRUD but only get for users, and open-weather lacks historical data. Memory and echo-server are trivial. The surface does not fully cover any single domain, leaving significant gaps for agent workflows.