Extract name@version from requirements/lockfile/go.mod/Cargo snippets. When: Extract name@version from lock/requirements snippets (best-effort).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| ecosystem | No | auto |
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 only mentions 'best-effort' to signal potential parse failures. It lacks details on output format, error behavior, or limitations for different ecosystem specifications.
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?
Two short sentences with repetition ('Extract name@version' appears twice). Could be condensed and front-loaded with the 'When:' context.
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 no annotations nor output schema, and the description omits return format, error handling, and parameter details. This leaves the agent underinformed for correct invocation.
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 description does not explain the 'text' or 'ecosystem' parameters. Given 0% schema coverage, this is a critical gap—the agent has no guidance on what text to provide or how ecosystem affects extraction.
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 tool extracts name@version from specific file types (requirements/lockfile/go.mod/Cargo). This verb+resource combo is unique among siblings, though the phrase 'best-effort' is vague.
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 a 'When:' clause indicating suitable snippets, but lacks any when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative approaches.
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.
Every tool has a clear, distinct purpose with thorough descriptions. Even closely related tools like base64_decode/encode and hash_md5/sha256 are easily differentiated by name and description.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase_underscore naming convention, typically in a <domain>_<action> or <action>_<domain> pattern. There are no jarring deviations or mixed styles.
193 tools is an extreme count, far beyond what any focused server needs. While each tool has utility, the sheer number creates a kitchen-sink effect that overwhelms agents and hinders discoverability.
Within each subdomain (JSON, cron, JWT, etc.), the coverage is exhaustive, covering validation, conversion, parsing, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., YAML-to-TOML conversion missing), but overall it is remarkably complete.