FarsiTools (paid)

fa_transliterate

Transliterate Persian, Dari or Arabic script into Latin letters, optionally as a URL slug. Use it to index Persian text in a Latin-keyword search engine, to build slugs for Persian titles, or to render Persian names in a Latin-only system. Returns the Latin transliteration and, when asked, the slug. ($0.01 per call, USDC on Base)

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>"
    },
    "name": "fa_transliterate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	No
`text`	Yes	Persian (Farsi) text or value to process. Max 100000 characters.
`options`	No	optional, e.g. {"digits":"ascii"}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses cost ($0.01 per call, USDC on Base) and that the return contains the transliteration plus an optional slug, but says nothing about determinism, rate limits, error behavior, or how non-letter characters are handled.

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-loads the core action and keeps the three use cases tight. Slightly list-like, but every clause (slug behavior, return content, pricing) adds decision-relevant information without padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what is returned (Latin transliteration, plus slug when requested), and cost is disclosed. The only real gap is the undocumented 'options' object, which an agent cannot reason about from the description alone.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description explains the slug flag ('optionally as a URL slug' / 'when asked, the slug'), adding value over the bare boolean. However, the 'options' parameter is completely unaddressed in both schema and description, so it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (transliterate) and resource (Persian/Dari/Arabic script into Latin), and clearly distinguishes itself from the many fa_ normalization/validation siblings. The optional slug behavior is front-loaded as part of the core purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives three concrete scenarios: indexing Persian text in a Latin-keyword engine, building slugs for Persian titles, and rendering names in a Latin-only system. This is clear context for when to reach for it, but it names no alternative sibling (e.g., fa_normalize) or exclusion conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All FarsiTools (paid) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?