Convert a password to leetspeak (for demonstration, not security).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | Leetspeak intensity (1-3) | |
| password | Yes | Password to convert to leetspeak |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | ||
| level | Yes | ||
| original | Yes | ||
| leetspeak | 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 the full burden. It discloses that the tool is for demonstration and not for security, which hints at behavioral constraints. However, it does not explain output format, side effects, or any required permissions. This provides minimal but acceptable transparency.
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 sentence that conveys the purpose and a key caveat. Every word is necessary; no fluff. It is efficiently structured.
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's simplicity (2 parameters, both described in schema, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers the essential purpose and a critical limitation (not for security). No gaps remain for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.
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%, with both parameters having descriptions that explain their roles. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 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 verb 'Convert', the resource 'password', and the context 'leetspeak (for demonstration, not security)'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_password' and 'generate_password' by specifying a specific transformation and non-security intent.
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 implies usage for demonstration purposes via the caveat 'for demonstration, not security', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Some guidance is inferred but not explicit.
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.
