Count occurrences of a substring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text to search in | |
| substring | Yes | Substring to count | |
| overlapping | No | Count overlapping occurrences | |
| case_sensitive | No | Case sensitive counting |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| count | Yes | ||
| positions | Yes | ||
| substring | Yes | ||
| overlapping | Yes | ||
| case_sensitive | 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 exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It fails to mention that overlapping and case_sensitive options modify behavior, nor does it specify default behavior for edge cases (e.g., empty substring). The return type is not stated, though an output schema may exist.
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 sentence), which is efficient but lacks important behavioral details. It front-loads the purpose but sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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 existence of an output schema (which presumably documents the return value), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not cover parameter interactions or corner cases, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.
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%, so the schema already describes all parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and their schema descriptions, so baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Count occurrences') and the resource ('a substring'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'contains' (boolean) and 'count_char' (single character), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 alternatives like 'count_char' for single characters or 'find_all_matches' for more complex patterns. Implied usage only from the name and description.
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.
