text_slugifierConverts text titles into URL-safe slugs and flags duplicates. x402 payment required (Base mainnet USDC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| titles | Yes | Text titles to slugify | |
| payment | No | x402 payment payload (base64 JSON), signed EIP-712 exact/transferWithAuthorization. Omit on the first call — the tool will return payment requirements (accepts[]) as an error result. | |
| maxLength | No | Truncate slugs longer than this (default 80) |
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 exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose an important behavioral trait: 'x402 payment required (Base mainnet USDC).' It also mentions duplicate flagging. However, it does not reveal that the first call will fail with payment requirements, how duplicates are flagged, or what the result structure looks like.
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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary function is front-loaded, and the critical payment caveat is placed prominently. Every word earns its place.
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?
Despite a well-documented schema, there is no output schema and no description of return values or duplicate-flagging semantics. The payment flow is only hinted at in the main description, leaving a necessary multi-step invocation pattern mostly unexplained. An agent would need to infer important behavior from an error result rather than being prepared for it.
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 three parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond naming the action; it doesn't explain 'maxLength' behavior or the payment payload format, but the schema covers these adequately.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Converts text titles into URL-safe slugs and flags duplicates.' This precisely captures the tool's core function and its distinguishing feature (duplicate flagging) even without sibling tools.
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 clearly implies the tool is for slugifying titles, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also does not mention the two-step payment flow that the schema hints at, leaving usage context partially dependent on parameter descriptions.
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.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusing it with other tools. The single tool's purpose is clear and unambiguous.
With only one tool, there is no naming convention to conflict. The name text_slugifier is descriptive, snake_case, and aligns with the server name.
A single tool is somewhat thin, even for a focused utility server. It is not an extreme mismatch, but it falls below the typical 3-15 tool range for a well-scoped server.
For the stated purpose of converting text to URL-safe slugs and flagging duplicates, the single tool fully covers the required functionality. There are no obvious missing operations within this narrow domain.