Generate a number sequence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | End value | |
| step | No | Step value | |
| start | No | Start value |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | ||
| step | Yes | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| length | Yes | ||
| sequence | 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 provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose but does not describe output behavior (e.g., inclusive/exclusive bounds, behavior when start > end, or default values). The defaults are in the schema, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that.
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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the verb 'Generate'. However, it is too brief and omits important details that would improve understanding without being verbose. It could be slightly expanded to add value while remaining concise.
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 complexity (trivial tool with 3 optional params) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but signaled), the description is minimally complete but lacks explanation of the sequence type (arithmetic) and edge cases. It does not inform the agent about the inclusive/exclusive nature of the range, which is important for correct usage.
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 clear parameter descriptions (start, end, step values). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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?
Description 'Generate a number sequence' is generic but indicates the tool produces a number sequence. However, it does not specify it's an arithmetic progression, making it hard to distinguish from siblings like fibonacci or collatz_sequence. A more specific description like 'Generate an arithmetic sequence from start to end with step' would be clearer.
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. For example, it does not state that this tool is for arithmetic progressions and not for other sequences like Fibonacci. Lacks explicit context for selection.
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.
