Generate lorem ipsum of approximately specified byte size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Approximate size in bytes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| actual_bytes | Yes | ||
| requested_bytes | 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 exist. The description mentions the output size is 'approximately' specified, which is a useful behavioral note. However, it does not disclose other traits like no side effects, randomness, or typical content.
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?
Single sentence, 9 words, front-loaded with verb. Every word is necessary and there is no waste.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description adequately conveys functionality for an agent to decide to use it. Minor omission: no mention that the output is standard lorem ipsum text, but that is implied by the tool name.
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%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds 'approximately' to the schema's 'Approximate size in bytes', but this is marginal enhancement beyond the schema.
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 action ('Generate'), the resource ('lorem ipsum'), and the key constraint ('approximately specified byte size'). It distinguishes from siblings that produce lorem in other formats like HTML, markdown, paragraphs, or words.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like lorem_words or lorem_paragraphs. It does not mention trade-offs or context for byte-based generation.
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.
