Reverse characters or word order in 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": "reverse_text"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | chars or words | |
| text | Yes | Text to reverse |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / modeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "chars or words",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / textAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Text to reverse",
+ "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 burden. 'Pure CPU, instant' usefully signals a local, synchronous, cheap operation with no network or auth, but it says nothing about output shape, edge cases (empty string, unicode), or whether whitespace/punctuation is preserved.
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, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the performance note. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 string utility with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is essentially complete; what the tool returns is obvious from the operation. A brief note on whitespace/unicode handling would push it higher.
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%, with 'mode' already documented as 'chars or words' and 'text' as the input to reverse. The description's mention of 'characters or word order' merely restates the mode enum rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb (reverse) and resource (characters or word order in text), so an agent can immediately tell what operation it performs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like atbash, rot13, or case_convert, but the operation is unambiguous on its own.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as rot13, atbash, or text_replace, and no exclusions are stated. The only implicit cue is the two modes, leaving selection entirely to inference.
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.