Convert integer to IP address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| integer | Yes | Integer to convert to IP | |
| version | No | IP version (4 or 6) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| integer | No | ||
| version | 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 the full burden. It only states the basic function but does not disclose that the tool supports both IPv4 and IPv6 (via the version parameter), what happens for invalid integers, or any error behavior. The return format is not mentioned, though an output schema exists.
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, front-loaded sentence of just 4 words. It conveys the core purpose without any filler, earning its place 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?
For a simple conversion tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the minimal description is mostly sufficient. However, it could briefly mention that the version parameter defaults to IPv4, which would add a small but useful touch.
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?
Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the expected integer range, conversion logic, or details about the version parameter.
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 'Convert integer to IP address' clearly states the action (convert) and the resource (integer to IP). It directly distinguishes from the sibling tool ip_to_integer which does the reverse, and other IP tools like ip_info that provide metadata.
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 such as ip_to_integer, ip_info, or ip_in_range. There are no hints about prerequisites, valid input ranges, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
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.
