Encrypt Text
security_encryptIdempotent
Encrypt text using AES-256-GCM with a passphrase.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| password | Yes | Encryption password (used to derive the key) | |
| plaintext | Yes | Text to encrypt |
botoi-mcp
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the ambiguous idempotentHint, the description does not disclose key derivation details, IV/nonce behavior, output format (e.g., base64, hex, tags), or reversibility. This is a significant gap for an encryption tool that must be correctly invoked.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no irrelevant content. It is front-loaded and to the point.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what the encrypted result looks like or any security context. Given the simplicity of the tool, it should at least mention the output format or passphrase handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 tool encrypts text using a specific algorithm (AES-256-GCM) with a passphrase. The verb 'encrypt' and resource 'text' are explicit, and it distinguishes from siblings like security_decrypt and dev_hash.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hashing, signing, or decryption. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
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
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools are grouped into clear categories (dev, lookup, security, text, transform), which helps with disambiguation, but within categories there is some overlap. For example, lookup_ssl and lookup_ssl_cert_expiry both handle SSL certificates, and dev_url_encode/dev_url_decode are closely related but distinct. Most tools have unique purposes, but a few could be confused without careful reading of descriptions.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent snake_case pattern with a clear prefix structure (dev_, lookup_, security_, text_, transform_), which aids in organization. However, there are minor deviations like dev_cron_describe using 'describe' while others use verbs like 'generate' or 'convert', and some tools have longer names that break the verb_noun pattern slightly. Overall, the naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 49 tools, the count is excessive for a utility server, making it overwhelming and likely to cause confusion or inefficiency. While the tools cover many use cases, a more focused set of 15-25 tools would be more manageable and better scoped. The high number suggests feature bloat rather than a coherent, minimal surface.
Completeness5/5
The tool set is highly complete for its utility and development support domain, covering a wide range of operations from data transformation and security to lookups and text processing. There are no obvious gaps; each category provides comprehensive coverage, such as full text encoding/decoding, security functions, and various lookup capabilities, ensuring agents can handle diverse tasks without dead ends.