Encode plain text to base64 or decode base64 back to text. Use mode='encode' for plain→base64, mode='decode' for base64→plain. UTF-8 safe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | encode: text → base64. decode: base64 → text. | |
| input | Yes | Input string. Plain text for encode, base64 for decode. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | Mode used, echoed back. | |
| output | Yes | The encoded or decoded result. |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying 'UTF-8 safe' and the exact role of each mode, going beyond what annotations provide.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by mode usage and a safety note. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
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 is simple, an output schema exists for return values, and the description covers purpose, mode selection, and encoding safety. It doesn't mention error handling for invalid base64, but for a straightforward converter, the description is adequately complete.
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%, with both parameters already documented in the input schema. The description reaffirms the mode semantics but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 encodes plain text to base64 and decodes base64 back to text, with a clear verb-resource relationship. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the only base64 utility, and the mode parameter explicitly differentiates the two directions.
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 gives explicit operating instructions (use mode='encode' or 'decode'), which provides clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but given the tool's unique purpose, the guidance is sufficient.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes. However, 'hex-to-rgb' is redundant with 'color-converter', which already handles hex-to-RGB conversion, causing potential confusion.
Names follow a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens style, but vary in pattern (e.g., 'angle-converter', 'average-calculator', 'dedup-lines'). One tool ('internal-do-not-call') deviates from the descriptive norm.
With 46 tools, the server is heavily populated. Many converters could be merged into a generic unit converter, and there is redundancy, making the surface unnecessarily large for a single server.
The server covers a broad range of utility domains: converters, text processing, math, cryptography, etc. Minor redundancies exist (e.g., hex-to-rgb vs color-converter), but the set is otherwise comprehensive.
