text_counterCount characters (with and without spaces), words, lines, paragraphs and estimated reading time. Runs on smart-tools.xyz.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to measure | |
| locale | No | Language for the source_url link (default en) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool is a counting/read-only operation by listing what it counts, but it does not explicitly state that the input text is not modified or describe the output format. The note 'Runs on smart-tools.xyz' adds no behavioral context beyond hosting.
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?
The description is two short sentences with all key information front-loaded: the list of counted metrics is immediately clear. No redundant wording, aside from the possibly unnecessary hosting note, but it does not detract from conciseness.
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 simple counting tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits what the return value looks like and what the 'source_url link' (mentioned in the schema) refers to. The tool would benefit from stating that it returns the counts and a shared link to the results.
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% (both text and locale are described). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema. However, the schema's note about locale for 'source_url link' hints at an output detail the description does not clarify, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Count characters (with and without spaces), words, lines, paragraphs and estimated reading time.' This specific verb and resource list (text metrics) distinguishes it from sibling tools like text_diff or case_converter, which serve different purposes.
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?
The description implies usage for measuring text metrics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The phrase 'Count characters... words...' provides a clear use case, but no comparison to sibling tools is given, so context is only implied.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but there are notable overlaps. 'hash_generator' and 'file_hash' effectively do the same thing (SHA hashing of text), and several CSV/TSV converters (csv_to_json, csv_to_sql, table_to_csv, markdown_table) have similar input handling, though outputs differ. The sheer number of converters is clear, but these near-duplicates create some ambiguity.
Names follow a generally consistent pattern: lowercase with underscores, often ending in 'converter', 'calculator', or 'generator'. A few names like 'base64', 'lorem_ipsum', and 'transliteration' deviate from the suffix pattern, but the naming style is uniform and predictable overall.
With 73 tools, this server is far over the typical well-scoped range. While the broad utility-toolkit purpose might justify a larger set, 73 is unwieldy and pushes well into 'too many' territory, making it harder for an agent to select the right tool efficiently.
The server covers a remarkably wide range of common utilities: unit conversions, calculators, text transformations, development helpers (JSON, regex, JWT, subnet), and generators. Minor gaps exist (e.g., currency converter, time zone converter), but for a general-purpose toolkit, it is largely comprehensive.