Skip to main content
Glama

NanoTools

by io.github.nanotools-x402

Api Urlcode

api_urlcode

URL encode/decode. ?op=enc|dec&data=... [HTTP x402 price: $0.001]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / params / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -true
    • addedInput schema / properties / params / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "data": {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "null"
+      }
+    ],
+    "default": null
+  },
+  "op": {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "null"
+      }
+    ],
+    "default": null
+  }
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the core encode/decode behavior and even includes the per-call price, but it does not mention edge cases like encoding style, UTF-8 handling, or error behavior.

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 extremely compact: a clear purpose, an invocation pattern, and a cost note. Every element earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple encode/decode utility with an output schema present, the description covers operation, parameter contract, and cost. It could add notes about optionality or default behavior, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining that op is either enc or dec and data is the input payload. It does not clarify whether data is required or what encodings are supported, but the essential meaning of both parameters is provided.

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 performs URL encode/decode and specifies the two modes via op=enc|dec. This distinguishes it from sibling transformation utilities like api_base64 or api_html_entities, which handle different encoding schemes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a concrete usage pattern with ?op=enc|dec&data=..., making it clear how to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context is clear enough for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All NanoTools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries: api_search and api_serp_google both return Google results, api_scrape and api_render_text both extract page text, and api_hash_multi overlaps with api_sha256 for SHA-256/SHA-512. While many tools are distinct, these overlapping pairs create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows the same api_<snake_case> pattern with no mixed conventions or casing styles. The prefix makes the server immediately recognizable and the action/resource is consistently readable across all 44 tools.

Tool Count2/5

44 tools is well over the 25+ threshold for a well-scoped set, making the server feel like a grab-bag of unrelated utilities. Even though each tool is small and individually useful, the overall surface is too large and would benefit from consolidation into focused sub-servers.

Completeness3/5

The set covers many common utility categories—encodings, conversions, text analysis, web scraping, SEO, and trends—but has notable one-way gaps: CSV/YAML/TOML all convert to JSON but not back, and markdown converts to HTML but not the reverse. The broad domain makes full completeness hard to define, so only major reverse-conversion gaps stand out.

Resources