Extract capture groups from a pattern match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to search | |
| pattern | Yes | Pattern with capture groups |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| groups | No | ||
| matched | No | ||
| pattern | Yes | ||
| full_match | No | ||
| named_groups | No | ||
| valid_pattern | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain key behaviors such as what happens with no matches, multiple matches, or patterns without capture groups. The brief sentence is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.
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 concise and front-loaded, but the single sentence sacrifices necessary detail. It is not optimally structured to convey critical information efficiently.
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 absence of annotations and the existence of an output schema, the description still lacks key contextual details about edge cases and behavior. It is incomplete for a two-parameter tool with no annotation support.
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%, and the parameter descriptions ('Pattern with capture groups', 'Text to search') add minimal meaning beyond names. The tool description does not supplement parameter semantics further, so a baseline 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 clearly states the tool extracts capture groups from a pattern match, specifying the verb and resource. It is sufficiently specific to distinguish from broader sibling tools like 'find_all_matches' or 'regex_replace', though it could be more explicit about the return format.
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. The description does not mention conditions for use, exclusions, or related tools like 'test_pattern' or 'find_all_matches'.
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.
