Convert HTML entities (&, <, >, ", ', and numeric &#NNN;) back to plain characters. Use when processing HTML-encoded text from APIs, email content, or legacy database fields before passing to an LLM or displaying to users.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | HTML-encoded string to unescape |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unescaped | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "input": "😀 😀"
+ }
+]Output schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "unescaped": {}
+}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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the supported entity set (named, decimal numeric, hex numeric), which is genuine spec detail. However it says nothing about unsupported/invalid entities, double-encoded input, or whether unknown sequences are left untouched — the main behavioral risk for an unescape operation.
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: the first states what it does plus the entity grammar, the second states when to use it. Nothing redundant, and the core action sentence is front-loaded.
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?
Return values are covered by the output schema and safety by annotations, so the description only needs purpose, use case and input expectations — all present. It is slightly short on edge-case behavior (invalid or nested entities), which an agent might want for malformed input.
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% with a single required 'input' string, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying which entity syntaxes are recognized (&, <, ", ', &#NNN;), which tells the agent what input forms are valid beyond the schema's one example.
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 gives a specific verb ('Convert ... back to plain characters') and resource ('HTML entities'), and enumerates the supported entity forms including numeric ones. The directionality ('back to plain characters', 'unescape') implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling escape_html, but that sibling is never named.
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?
It names concrete contexts where the tool applies (HTML-encoded text from APIs, email content, legacy database fields) and the downstream purpose (passing to an LLM or display). It does not name escape_html as the opposite-direction alternative, but the use case framing is clear with no ambiguity about when to reach for it.
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.