Generate random geographic coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of coordinate pairs to generate | |
| region | No | Region: us, eu, asia, or null for worldwide | |
| decimals | No | Decimal precision |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| values | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'generate random geographic coordinates' without detailing the distribution, valid ranges, or whether coordinates are on land or sea. This lack of transparency hinders informed usage.
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 with no extraneous words, but it is too terse—sacrificing necessary detail for brevity. A slightly longer description could include optional parameters or behavior without becoming verbose.
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?
While an output schema exists (not shown), the description omits critical details like coordinate bounds (latitude: -90 to 90, longitude: -180 to 180) and how region filtering works. For a random generation tool, this incompleteness reduces usability.
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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what is in the schema, such as the effect of 'region' or 'decimals' on output format.
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') and the resource ('random geographic coordinates'), making the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like random_address or is_valid_coordinates, which also involve coordinates.
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 other random generators or coordinate-related tools. There is no mention of appropriate contexts or alternatives.
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.
