md_to_epubMarkdown → EPUB e-book, with title and author metadata.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "md_to_epub"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| author | No | ||
| markdown | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / authorAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / markdownAdded value: +{}Input schema / properties / titleAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / urlAdded value: +{}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions only the inclusion of title and author metadata but does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, requires network access (via url), what happens to the input, or any side effects. The mention of 'url' implies fetching external content but no disclosure about rate limits or security.
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, very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it omits essential parameter details and usage guidelines, so while it's brief, it may be under-specified.
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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the role of 'url' vs 'markdown', nor any return value or error handling. The presence of sibling tools suggests the need for more distinction, but the description only covers the basic conversion.
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 0%, meaning the description must explain the parameters. It mentions title and author briefly, but 'url' and 'markdown' are left unexplained, and it's unclear which is required or how they interact. This does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 uses a clear verb ('converts') and specifies the input format (Markdown) and output format (EPUB e-book), distinguishing it from sibling tools like md_to_html and md_to_pdf. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it uses a URL or inline markdown, which is partially covered by the schema.
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 implies when to use it (when converting Markdown to EPUB) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the presence of sibling tools like md_to_docx and md_to_pdf, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on selecting among them, but the purpose clarity helps infer.
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.