URL-encode or URL-decode a string. Uses RFC 3986 component encoding (encodeURIComponent semantics).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | encode: text → URL-encoded. decode: URL-encoded → text. | |
| input | Yes | Input string. |
| 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?
The description discloses important behavioral context beyond the annotations by explicitly stating 'RFC 3986 component encoding (encodeURIComponent semantics)'. This clarifies the exact encoding scheme, which is a meaningful addition. It does not contradict the readOnly/idempotent hints.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately follows with the technical detail. There is zero wasted wording, making it highly efficient.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with a complete input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is sufficient. It adds the RFC 3986 context, which compensates for potential ambiguity. Minor omissions like error handling on invalid input are not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (mode with an explicit enum mapping, and input as 'Input string'), so coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond repeating the encode/decode functionality, so the baseline score applies.
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's function with specific verbs ('URL-encode or URL-decode') and a resource ('a string'). It distinguishes from siblings like base64 (different encoding scheme) and url-parser (parsing, not encoding) by specifying URL encoding and including the RFC 3986 detail.
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 intended use is implied: if you need to URL-encode or decode, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as base64 or url-parser, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.
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.
