Slice an array.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | End index (exclusive) | |
| items | Yes | Comma-separated items | |
| start | No | Start index |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| sliced | Yes | ||
| original | 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?
The description does not disclose behavioral details such as whether operations are read-only or destructive, error handling, or the exclusivity of indices. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to add meaningful information.
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 extremely concise (one short sentence) but at the expense of necessary detail. It is under-specified rather than efficiently comprehensive, missing context that would help an agent.
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 the availability of an output schema, the description need not detail return values, but it still lacks context on how the comma-separated string is processed (e.g., delimiter, whitespace handling). The brief description is insufficient for a tool with multiple array-related siblings.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, providing definitions for start, end, and items. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Slice an array' is vague. It states a verb and resource but does not clarify what 'slice' means (e.g., extract a subarray). Among siblings like array_compact, array_dedupe, and array_partition, it does not differentiate itself. The input schema provides some clarity via start and end indices, but the description alone is insufficient.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative array operations (e.g., array_first, array_last, array_partition). The description offers no context for selection.
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.
