Change the case of text: UPPERCASE, lowercase, Title Case, or Sentence case.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case | Yes | Target case. upper=ALL CAPS, lower=all lower, title=Title Case Each Word, sentence=First letter only. | |
| text | Yes | Text to transform. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case | Yes | Case used, echoed back. | |
| output | Yes | Transformed text. |
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?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, so the bar is lower. The description simply restates the operation without adding behavior details such as edge-case handling or output confirmation, though none are necessary given the output schema.
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 short clauses, front-loading the primary action and listing the four case formats. No filler words.
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 2-parameter text transformation with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations indicating safety, the description plus structured data provide sufficient context. No major gaps.
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 descriptions cover both parameters fully (100% coverage), including the enum meanings for case. The description repeats the case options but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema.
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 'change' and identifies the resource 'case of text,' listing four specific case types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling text tools like reverse-text or dedup-lines.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The intended usage is implied by the tool's name and purpose, but there is no discussion of when to choose this over other text manipulation tools.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes. However, 'hex-to-rgb' is redundant with 'color-converter', which already handles hex-to-RGB conversion, causing potential confusion.
Names follow a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens style, but vary in pattern (e.g., 'angle-converter', 'average-calculator', 'dedup-lines'). One tool ('internal-do-not-call') deviates from the descriptive norm.
With 46 tools, the server is heavily populated. Many converters could be merged into a generic unit converter, and there is redundancy, making the surface unnecessarily large for a single server.
The server covers a broad range of utility domains: converters, text processing, math, cryptography, etc. Minor redundancies exist (e.g., hex-to-rgb vs color-converter), but the set is otherwise comprehensive.
