slugifyTurn a title or phrase into a clean, URL-safe slug (lowercase, hyphenated, accents stripped). Use when generating page paths, filenames or anchor IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Text to slugify. | |
| separator | No | Word separator. | - |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The URL-safe slug. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "slug": {
+ "description": "The URL-safe slug.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "slug"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: 'lowercase, hyphenated, accents stripped' and 'URL-safe'. This goes beyond the annotations to describe the transformation behavior. No contradictions with annotations.
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 concise two-sentence structure with the primary action front-loaded and the use cases clearly stated. No filler words or redundant information—every sentence 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?
Given the low complexity, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to understand the tool's purpose, behaviors, and applicable scenarios. Nothing missing.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond noting the transformations; it restates the separator concept implicitly via 'hyphenated' but does not explicitly discuss the separator parameter. Schema descriptions carry the load.
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 a specific verb ('Turn') and resource ('title or phrase into a clean, URL-safe slug'), and explicitly lists the transformations applied (lowercase, hyphenated, accents stripped). This distinguishes it from sibling utility tools like base64, hash, or url_parse.
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 provides explicit use cases ('page paths, filenames or anchor IDs'), which clearly signals when to use the tool. However, it does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5 per the rubric.
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.