Synthesize a battle-tested regex from labeled examples. Input: optional natural-language description + 20 examples (10 positive, 10 negative, or any mix of ≥4). Output: regex + flags + test matrix proving every example is handled correctly + backtracking-risk analysis. Deterministic; no LLM at serve time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| examples | Yes | ||
| description | No | Optional natural-language description, used only for tie-breaking. |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states determinism, no-LLM-at-serve-time, and the guaranteed test matrix with backtracking-risk analysis. It does not cover failure modes or edge cases, but the provided behavioral traits are sufficient for usage understanding.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then covering inputs, outputs, and behavioral guarantees. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description enumerates all output components (regex, flags, test matrix, backtracking analysis). It also covers input constraints and core behavioral characteristics, making it complete for an agent to decide on and invoke the tool.
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 50%; the description compensates by detailing that the description parameter is optional and used for tie-breaking, and by explaining example mix constraints (10 positive/10 negative or ≥4 total). This adds meaning beyond the schema's simple field definitions.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Synthesize a battle-tested regex from labeled examples.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from generic regex tooling by emphasizing the synthesis from examples, plus its deterministic nature.
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 provides explicit input requirements (optional description + 20 examples, or any mix ≥4) and output expectations (regex, flags, test matrix, backtracking analysis). It also gives behavioral guidance ('Deterministic; no LLM at serve time'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives since no sibling tools are present.
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.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct.
The single tool name 'regexforge_synth' follows a clear service_action pattern, making it predictable and self-explanatory. With only one tool, there are no inconsistencies.
The server has only one tool, which feels thin for a general-purpose toolkit but is acceptable for a narrowly focused service. The tool is comprehensive in its functionality, but having only one tool may leave agents wanting more basic utilities like regex validation or explanation.
The tool covers the entire workflow of regex synthesis from examples, including a test matrix and backtracking risk analysis. There are no obvious missing operations within the stated domain of generating battle-tested regexes.