Calculate bounding box around a point.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Center latitude | |
| lon | Yes | Center longitude | |
| unit | No | Unit: km or mi | km |
| radius | Yes | Radius |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit | Yes | ||
| center | Yes | ||
| radius | Yes | ||
| bounding_box | 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?
With no annotations, the description fully shoulders the burden of disclosure. It only states the action but omits critical behavioral details: whether the bounding box is square or circular, if it accounts for geodesic curvature, edge cases near poles/dateline, or the format of the output (e.g., min/max lat/lon).
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence contains no wasted words. Every token serves the purpose of stating what the tool does.
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 an output schema being present, the description fails to explain what 'bounding box' means in practice (e.g., returns min/max lat/lon). For a geospatial calculation, this is a notable omission that limits the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.
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 succinct descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Center latitude', 'Radius'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 'Calculate bounding box around a point' uses a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('bounding box'), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like distance or haversine_distance by specifying the output type.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., distance, point_in_polygon). The description does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without context to choose appropriately among many spatial 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.
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.
