Convert an IP range to CIDR notation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_ip | Yes | End IP address | |
| start_ip | Yes | Start IP address |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cidrs | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| end_ip | No | ||
| start_ip | No | ||
| total_addresses | 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 only says 'convert', omitting critical details like output format (single CIDR or list), handling of IPv4/IPv6, error conditions, or whether it computes the minimal set of CIDR blocks. The description is too minimal for a tool with potentially complex behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It efficiently states the core purpose, though it could benefit from slightly more detail 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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description fails to indicate the nature of the output (e.g., string or array). For a conversion that may yield multiple CIDRs, this is a significant gap. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description is insufficiently complete.
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% (both parameters described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No parameter details are enhanced.
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 ('convert'), the resource ('IP range'), and the target format ('CIDR notation'). It is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like cidr_info or expand_cidr.
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 versus alternatives (e.g., cidr_info, expand_cidr, ip_in_range). There is no mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or appropriate contexts for using this tool.
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.
