random_catGet a random cat image. Returns image URL, cat ID, and associated tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique identifier for the cat image | |
| url | Yes | Direct URL to the cat image | |
| tags | Yes | Array of tags associated with the cat | |
| mimetype | Yes | MIME type of the image file | |
| created_at | Yes | ISO timestamp when cat image was created |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "created_at": {
+ "description": "ISO timestamp when cat image was created",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Unique identifier for the cat image",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "mimetype": {
+ "description": "MIME type of the image file",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "tags": {
+ "description": "Array of tags associated with the cat",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "Direct URL to the cat image",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "url",
+ "tags",
+ "mimetype",
+ "created_at"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds return value details but no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary and efficient.
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 simple tool with no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the return values. No gaps remain.
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?
No parameters exist in the schema, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 applies due to zero parameters.
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 retrieves a random cat image and specifies the return fields (URL, ID, tags). It distinguishes from the sibling 'cat_by_tag' tool by implying unconstrained randomness.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cat_by_tag'. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information 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.
Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route natural-language questions to the same underlying data catalog, and the polymarket_* family has several near-synonymous scanning tools. Entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes also have fuzzy boundaries. Only the three cat tools are clearly distinct, but an agent could easily pick the wrong tool across the Pipeworx family.
The names are consistently snake_case and several families share clear prefixes like ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, and list_. However, the set mixes imperative verb-first names with noun-style names, and the cat_* tools do not share any naming pattern with the dominant Pipeworx family.
34 tools is too many for a server named Cataas, and only 3 of them are actually cat-related. The other 31 tools belong to an unrelated data-research and prediction-market platform, making the tool count inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
As a cat-image server, the surface is thin: random_cat, cat_by_tag, and list_tags cover basics but omit common Cataas operations like GIFs or text-on-cat. As a data-research platform, the cat tools are noise, so the mixed set is incomplete and incoherent for either apparent purpose.