Escape HTML special characters (&, <, >, ", ') to their safe HTML entities. ALWAYS call this before inserting any user-provided or LLM-generated content into an HTML template to prevent cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | String to HTML-escape |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| escaped | No | ||
| original_length | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific characters being escaped and the XSS-prevention purpose, going beyond the structural hints without contradicting them.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core operation. Every word earns its place—lists exact characters, states the mandatory usage, and explains the security benefit without fluff.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and effect. No gaps are evident; it's complete and actionable on its own.
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 coverage is 100% (input described as 'String to HTML-escape'). The description adds meaning by specifying which characters get escaped and preemptively addressing the security context, enhancing the schema's basic parameter description.
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 uses a specific verb ('Escape') and resource ('HTML special characters') listing the exact characters (&, <, >, ", '). It clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'unescape_html' and other escaping utilities.
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 says 'ALWAYS call this before inserting any user-provided or LLM-generated content into an HTML template to prevent XSS attacks', which is explicit about when to use. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the strong 'ALWAYS' directive provides clear context.
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.
Multiple tools overlap significantly: compare_models/llm_fit_finder/model_info/list_llm_models all compare models; similarity_score/embedding_similarity/run_semantic_tests all measure text similarity; detect_secrets/secret_scan/analyze_diff_bugs/pr_gatekeeper all scan for secrets. Descriptions attempt to differentiate, but the boundaries between many tools are unclear, making selection error-prone.
The vast majority of tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (validate_email, generate_uuid, parse_csv), making the set mostly predictable. A few notable deviations exist (pr_gatekeeper, llm_fit_finder, cot_analyzer, jira_to_test_suite, needle_haystack_generate) but they are the exception rather than the rule.
With 149 tools, this set is far beyond the 50+ threshold for an extreme mismatch. Even as a general-purpose QA & Dev toolkit, the sheer number overwhelms and exceeds any reasonable scope, making discovery and selection impractical.
The toolkit covers an impressively broad range: text processing, LLM evaluation, security auditing, web checks, MCP validation, Jira/Confluence integration, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as missing delete/update for webhooks and Confluence pages, and no create/update for Jira issues, but these are workable around.