pem_decode
List PEM blocks in text (label, DER size, SHA256 fingerprint).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
ToolAPI
by org.toolapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses output attributes but does not cover error behavior, handling of malformed PEM, or multiple blocks. This is minimally acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite simplicity, the description omits return format, handling of no matches, and any prerequisites. With no output schema, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies that the single 'text' parameter is the input containing PEM blocks. With 0% schema documentation, this adds necessary meaning beyond the schema's 'string' type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'PEM blocks', and specifies the output attributes (label, DER size, SHA256 fingerprint). This differentiates it from siblings like base64_decode (raw decode) and x509_parse (certificate parsing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for inspecting PEM blocks but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though sibling differentiation is implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency5/5
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.
Tool Count1/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.