Get information about a network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | Yes | Network in CIDR notation (e.g., 192.168.1.0/24) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| valid | No | ||
| netmask | No | ||
| network | Yes | ||
| version | No | ||
| hostmask | No | ||
| last_host | No | ||
| first_host | No | ||
| is_private | No | ||
| num_addresses | No | ||
| prefix_length | No | ||
| network_address | No | ||
| broadcast_address | 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any prerequisites. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects from the description alone.
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—one sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is arguably too sparse, but for a simple tool, it achieves brevity without losing clarity on the basic purpose.
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 has only one parameter with a well-documented schema and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description could be considered minimally adequate. However, it lacks details that would help the agent understanding the tool's full scope, especially in the context of many similar sibling tools.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage—the parameter 'network' already includes a clear description in CIDR notation. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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?
The description states the verb 'Get' and resource 'information about a network', which is clear in a generic sense. However, it does not specify what type of information (e.g., range, broadcast, subnet mask) and fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like cidr_info, which likely provide similar functionality.
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 (e.g., cidr_info, ip_info, subnet_calculator). The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' indications, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
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.
