Skip to main content
Glama

ScorpTech x402 Tools

Text Ellipsis

text_ellipsis
Read-onlyIdempotent

Cut one Helvetica line so it fits a width, ending with an ellipsis (…) when the text is too long. The ellipsis is the WinAnsi character. If the whole line already fits, it is returned unchanged. If even the ellipsis is wider than the measure, the call is rejected. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: GET https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/text-ellipsis

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>",
      "width": "<width>"
    },
    "name": "text_ellipsis"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fontNohelvetica
sizeNo12
textYes
widthYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the rejection edge case, the return-unchanged behavior, the WinAnsi ellipsis encoding, the $0.001 USDC x402/Solana price, and a same-tool HTTPS endpoint. That is meaningful behavioral context for a read utility.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action, then edge cases, then pricing and endpoint. Every sentence adds information; no filler.

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 single-line text utility with no output schema, the description covers the operation, edge cases, encoding, and payment/transport details. The main shortfall is undocumented size parameter semantics.

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

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema coverage across 4 params, the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only touches width and, implicitly, font via 'Helvetica line'. The size parameter and the helvetica-vs-helvetica-bold enum distinction are never explained, leaving substantial gaps.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: cuts a Helvetica line to a width with an ellipsis. The ellipsis-fit truncation behavior distinguishes it from sibling text tools like text_width, text_wrap, and text_fit, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives the fitting/not-fitting/rejection conditions, which implies when the tool applies, but does not explicitly contrast it against text_width or text_wrap, so the agent must infer the right sibling from the truncation behavior alone.

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