dev_url_encodeURL-encode a string by escaping special characters. Use when building query parameters, form data, or safe URLs that contain reserved characters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | String to encode | |
| component | No | Use encodeURIComponent (true) or encodeURI (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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, side-effect-free operation. The description adds the note about 'escaping special characters,' but does not explain differences between the two encoding modes (component=false vs true) or edge cases. With annotations present, the added behavioral detail is minimal but not contradictory.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and followed by usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.
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 two well-documented parameters and a readOnly annotation, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. The return value is self-evident for URL encoding, and the schema clarifies the component parameter. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention that the output is the encoded string, but this is implied.
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%, with both 'text' and 'component' already described. The description only restates the purpose without adding new meaning to the parameters, especially the component boolean. 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: 'URL-encode a string by escaping special characters.' It specifies the resource (a string) and the action (URL-encoding), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dev_url_decode and other encoding 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?
Provides explicit use cases: 'building query parameters, form data, or safe URLs.' It gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use 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.
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.