Calculate simple interest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rate | Yes | Annual interest rate (percentage) | |
| time | Yes | Time in years | |
| principal | Yes | Initial principal |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| interest | Yes | ||
| principal | Yes | ||
| time_years | Yes | ||
| final_amount | Yes | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. It does not disclose rounding rules, precision, handling of edge cases (e.g., zero rate, negative time beyond schema constraints), or return format. The output schema exists but isn't mentioned.
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 brief (one sentence) but lacks important context. It under-specifies rather than being concise, missing opportunities to add value in a few additional words.
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 low complexity, the description omits usage context, return value description, and differentiation from similar tools. An output schema exists, but the description should still provide enough information for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.
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% with each parameter described (principal, rate, time). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score of 3.
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 'Calculate simple interest' clearly states the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like compound_interest or loan_payment, which are related but distinct.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that compound interest uses compounding periods or that other tools might be more suitable for specific scenarios.
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.
