Wrap text to a column width for terminals, emails or code blocks. 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": "wrap_text"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to wrap | |
| width | No | Column width |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / textAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Text to wrap",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / widthAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Column width",
+ "type": "integer"
+}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 load, and 'Pure CPU, instant' usefully signals a cheap, local, side-effect-free transform with no auth or rate limits. It does not disclose behavior an agent would care about, such as whether existing newlines are preserved, whether long words are hard-broken, or whether markup is respected.
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 clauses with the purpose front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the name. 'Pure CPU, instant' is short enough to earn its place as a cost signal, though it could have been used to buy a more valuable behavioral detail.
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 two-parameter, non-destructive text utility with a fully covered schema and no output schema, this is close to sufficient. The remaining shortfall is wrap semantics (word-break policy, newline handling, width default), which the description never touches.
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%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, most notably no default for 'width' when it is omitted, which is the one gap the schema leaves open.
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 ('Wrap') and resource ('text') plus the parameterized outcome ('to a column width'), which is enough to distinguish it from nearby siblings like truncate or indent. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from those overlapping text-formatting tools, so it is clear but not sibling-aware.
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?
It offers three usage contexts (terminals, emails, code blocks), which implies when to reach for it, but gives no exclusions and does not name an alternative such as truncate for cutting versus wrapping. An agent must infer the boundaries itself.
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.