Get symmetric difference (items in either but not both).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| array1 | Yes | First comma-separated array | |
| array2 | Yes | Second comma-separated array |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| union | No | ||
| array1 | Yes | ||
| array2 | Yes | ||
| difference | No | ||
| intersection | No | ||
| symmetric_difference | No |
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 explains the basic operation but lacks behavioral details such as handling of duplicate elements, ordering of results, empty array behavior, or case sensitivity. The agent may need to infer precise behavior from the mathematical definition.
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 that immediately conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded with the tool's function and contains no unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness.
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?
The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core purpose adequately but could improve by mentioning duplicate handling or edge cases to be fully complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters having a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without adding value.
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 computes the symmetric difference with an explanatory parenthetical 'items in either but not both'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling array operations like array_intersection (items in both) and array_union (all items).
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 implies usage for computing symmetric difference, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like array_difference, array_intersection, or array_union. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
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.
