Calculate approximate sun position (azimuth and elevation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | Day | |
| lat | Yes | Latitude | |
| lon | Yes | Longitude | |
| hour | No | Hour (24h format) | |
| year | Yes | Year | |
| month | Yes | Month |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| is_day | Yes | ||
| azimuth | Yes | ||
| datetime | Yes | ||
| location | Yes | ||
| elevation | 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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. The term 'approximate' hints at accuracy but does not disclose assumptions (e.g., clear sky, atmospheric refraction) or output units. It mentions azimuth and elevation but lacks depth on model behavior. A 3 is appropriate given the minimal disclosure.
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 concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without extraneous words. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., mention units), but it is efficient.
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 has 6 parameters with a clear schema and an output schema exists. However, the description omits important context like timezone handling (hour is 0-23 but no mention of UTC/local) or whether the model accounts for daylight saving. Given the output schema likely handles return values, the description is minimally adequate but could be more complete for a geospatial calculation.
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 all parameters. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 'Calculate approximate sun position (azimuth and elevation).' It uses a specific verb ('calculate') and identifies the resource ('sun position') and outputs (azimuth and elevation). Among siblings, there are no other sun-position tools, so it is clearly distinguishable.
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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent receives no context about solar position use cases or limitations.
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.
