dev_url_decodeURL-decode a percent-encoded string back to readable text. Use when parsing query parameters, redirect URIs, or encoded form values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | URL-encoded string to decode | |
| component | No | Use decodeURIComponent (true) or decodeURI (false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the transformation behavior (percent-encoded to readable text) but does not discuss edge cases like malformed input or the difference between decodeURIComponent and decodeURI, which the schema covers. It adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.
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, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place.
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 utility with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It explains purpose and usage, though it could mention return format or error behavior, but that is optional for this simple operation.
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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema already documents both 'text' and 'component' clearly.
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 states a specific action ('URL-decode a percent-encoded string') and the resource ('back to readable text'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like dev_url_encode. It also provides concrete use cases (query parameters, redirect URIs, form values).
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 explicitly says 'Use when parsing query parameters, redirect URIs, or encoded form values', giving clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.
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.
The tools are grouped into clear categories (dev, lookup, security, text, transform), which helps with disambiguation, but within categories there is some overlap. For example, lookup_ssl and lookup_ssl_cert_expiry both handle SSL certificates, and dev_url_encode/dev_url_decode are closely related but distinct. Most tools have unique purposes, but a few could be confused without careful reading of descriptions.
The naming follows a consistent snake_case pattern with a clear prefix structure (dev_, lookup_, security_, text_, transform_), which aids in organization. However, there are minor deviations like dev_cron_describe using 'describe' while others use verbs like 'generate' or 'convert', and some tools have longer names that break the verb_noun pattern slightly. Overall, the naming is predictable and readable.
With 49 tools, the count is excessive for a utility server, making it overwhelming and likely to cause confusion or inefficiency. While the tools cover many use cases, a more focused set of 15-25 tools would be more manageable and better scoped. The high number suggests feature bloat rather than a coherent, minimal surface.
The tool set is highly complete for its utility and development support domain, covering a wide range of operations from data transformation and security to lookups and text processing. There are no obvious gaps; each category provides comprehensive coverage, such as full text encoding/decoding, security functions, and various lookup capabilities, ensuring agents can handle diverse tasks without dead ends.