Calculate monthly loan payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rate | Yes | Annual interest rate (percentage) | |
| months | Yes | Loan term in months | |
| principal | Yes | Loan amount |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| principal | Yes | ||
| total_paid | Yes | ||
| term_months | Yes | ||
| total_interest | Yes | ||
| monthly_payment | Yes | ||
| annual_rate_percent | 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 present, so the description must fully communicate behavioral traits. It fails to mention assumptions (e.g., fixed rate, monthly compounding), edge cases (e.g., zero or negative rates), or the structure of the output (despite the output schema existing). The description is too sparse for safe invocation.
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 (4 words) and front-loaded. While missing some context, it contains no fluff. Every word earns its place.
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 moderate complexity (financial calculation with 3 parameters), the description is incomplete. It does not mention the formula used, whether the result is returned as a number or object, or any validation constraints beyond the schema. The output schema exists but is not leveraged for completeness.
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 description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter titles and schema descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it neither adds nor detracts.
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 'Calculate monthly loan payment' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling financial tools like 'mortgage_calculator' or 'simple_interest', which could lead to confusion for an AI agent.
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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mortgage_calculator'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
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.
