Skip to main content
Glama

base85

Encode text to Base85 (ASCII85) or decode it back. Pure CPU, instant. Use for compact binary-safe payloads inside JSON.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "base85"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText or Base85 to process
decodeNoDecode instead of encode

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / decode
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Decode instead of encode",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / text
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Text or Base85 to process",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "text"
      +]
  4. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is pure CPU and instant, which is useful, but it does not cover error handling, output determinism, or edge cases like invalid input.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences plus a short usage note, front-loaded with the primary operation and variant. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple codec with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context (operation, performance, use case). It could mention the return type or error behavior, but the essentials are present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 both parameters. The description adds no extra syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (encode/decode) and resource (text to Base85/ASCII85), and identifies the encoding variant (ASCII85). This distinguishes it from sibling codec tools like base64 and base32 without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Use for compact binary-safe payloads inside JSON.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when Base64 is preferable).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources