Remove duplicates from array.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Comma-separated items | |
| preserve_order | No | Preserve original order |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deduped | Yes | ||
| original | Yes | ||
| duplicates_removed | Yes |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose important behaviors such as whether the original order is preserved (despite the preserve_order parameter), how duplicate detection works, or what happens with empty arrays. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand non-obvious behavior.
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 sentence with no filler. While efficient, it could be slightly expanded to include behavioral details without becoming verbose. The front-loading is good but misses key context.
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?
Given that an output schema exists (not shown but declared), the description is not required to explain return values. However, for a simple array tool among many siblings, the description lacks behavioral completeness (order preservation, duplicate detection criteria) and provides no example or edge-case handling.
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 100%, with both parameters ('items' and 'preserve_order') described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.
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 core function ('Remove duplicates from array'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like array_compact or array_intersection. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a duplicate (e.g., strict equality) and could be more explicit about the operation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other array manipulation tools like array_compact, array_union, or array_unique alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, edge cases, or comparative context.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple random generators (random_integer, random_number), duplicate hashing functions (hash_md5, md5_checksum), and near-identical tools (compare, compare_2, compare_decimals). The sheer number of tools and lack of clear boundaries make it difficult for an agent to differentiate.
Naming is highly inconsistent. There are duplicate tools with different names (camel_case vs to_camel_case, slug vs slugify), arbitrary suffixes like '_2', and mixing of patterns (e.g., generate_password vs password_entropy). No clear convention is followed.
With 572 tools, the server is massively overpopulated for any coherent purpose. It includes trivial endpoints (true_endpoint, null, hello_world) and numerous duplicates, far exceeding a well-scoped utility set.
While the server covers many domains (math, strings, dates, colors, etc.), the presence of duplicate and trivial tools indicates a lack of thoughtful curation. There are gaps in basic operations (e.g., no dedicated file or network tools), and many tools are redundant.
