Minify HTML by collapsing whitespace and removing comments, with the bytes saved. Pure CPU, instant.
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": {
"html": "<html>"
},
"name": "html_minify"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | HTML text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / htmlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "HTML text",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "html"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that comments are removed and whitespace collapsed, and that the operation is 'Pure CPU, instant' (no network, no side effects, fast). It omits important behavioral edges for a minifier, such as whether content inside <pre>/<textarea>/<script> is preserved or whether malformed HTML is tolerated.
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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the transformation details immediately after. 'Pure CPU, instant' earns its place by telling the agent the call is cheap and side-effect free.
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 single-parameter pure function with no output schema, the description covers the action, the mechanism, the cost profile, and hints at the return value ('with the bytes saved'). Only the handling of sensitive HTML regions is 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?
There is a single parameter ('html') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format, size, or encoding guidance beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline for a fully covered single-param tool.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Minify HTML') plus the exact transformations performed (collapsing whitespace, removing comments). The resource name implicitly separates it from the css_minify sibling, but it never names that alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is for shrinking HTML payloads before serving. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use (e.g. when whitespace is semantically significant), and no pointer to css_minify or indent as alternatives.
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.