Calculate contrast ratio between two colors (WCAG).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color1 | Yes | First hex color | |
| color2 | Yes | Second hex color |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color1 | Yes | ||
| color2 | Yes | ||
| wcag_aa_large | Yes | ||
| contrast_ratio | Yes | ||
| wcag_aa_normal | Yes | ||
| wcag_aaa_large | Yes | ||
| wcag_aaa_normal | 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 return value format, range, or error handling for invalid colors. For a pure computation tool, the lack of safety or side-effect details is acceptable but still leaves ambiguity.
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, concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and context, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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 tool is simple and an output schema likely exists, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it omits the return type (ratio number) and WCAG-specific guidance that would aid interpretation of results.
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% (both parameters labeled as 'hex color'), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as accepted formats or examples. It adequately describes parameters but doesn't enhance understanding.
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 calculates contrast ratio between two colors following WCAG standards. It uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('contrast ratio'), and distinguishes itself from sibling color tools like hex_to_rgb or get_luminance.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain the WCAG context (e.g., AA/AAA thresholds) or when not to use it. Sibling tools include many color utilities, but no differentiation is offered.
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.
