Convert text to Morse code and Morse back to text. 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": {
"text": "<text>"
},
"name": "morse"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text or Morse | |
| decode | No | Decode Morse to text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / decodeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Decode Morse to text",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / textAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Text or Morse",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "text"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Pure CPU, instant' usefully signals no network calls, no side effects and negligible latency, but it says nothing about error behavior on invalid Morse, case handling, unsupported characters, or output format.
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 nothing wasted; the capability and its performance profile are both front-loaded and instantly comprehensible.
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 trivial two-parameter pure function with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful gap is what the returned string looks like (separator conventions), which an agent would still have to discover by calling it.
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 100% and both parameters are documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'text' accepts either plain text or Morse and that a decode direction exists, but adds no format details (dot/dash separators, word delimiters) beyond the schema.
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 ('Convert text to Morse code and Morse back to text'), covering both directions explicitly. There is no sibling ambiguity to resolve (atbash, rot13 and caesar_cipher are distinct ciphers), but the description makes no effort at sibling differentiation, so it falls short of a 5.
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 implied by the bidirectional phrasing plus the 'decode' flag, so an agent can infer that the default encodes and decode=true decodes. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no note on invalid input handling, and no named alternative.
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.