Convert any string into a URL-friendly slug: lowercase, ASCII-normalized (é→e), special characters removed, spaces replaced with hyphens. Use for generating SEO-friendly URL paths, file names, or identifier keys from user-provided titles or labels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | String to slugify | |
| separator | No | Separator character (default: "-") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "input": "Héllo Wörld 2026"
+ }
+]Output schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "slug": {}
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine semantic detail beyond annotations – the exact normalization pipeline (lowercase, ASCII-fold, strip special chars, hyphenate spaces) – which tells the agent precisely what the output will look like, though it says nothing about edge cases like empty results or length limits.
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, zero filler, with the core transformation front-loaded before the use-case guidance. Every clause contributes distinct information.
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 pure-function tool with an output schema present, a complete parameter schema, and full annotations, the description gives everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Return-value explanation is rightly omitted since the output schema exists.
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 'input' and 'separator' are documented already. The description's mention of spaces being replaced with hyphens loosely relates to the separator parameter but adds no real new semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('any string into a URL-friendly slug') and then enumerates the exact transformation rules. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like case_convert or url_encode purely from the description.
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?
Explicitly names the use cases ('SEO-friendly URL paths, file names, or identifier keys from user-provided titles or labels'), giving clear context for when to reach for it. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to alternatives, so it does not reach the top tier.
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.