api_html_entitiesEscape or unescape HTML entities. ?op=enc|dec&data= [HTTP x402 price: $0.001]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / params / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueInput schema / properties / params / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "data": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+ },
+ "op": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+ }
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states the core operation (escape/unescape) and the $0.001 cost, which is valuable. However, it does not mention idempotency, error behavior, payload limits, or authentication needs. It is adequate but not rich.
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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then parameter syntax, then cost. Every element earns its place, and there is no filler.
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 stateless converter, the description covers purpose, parameter meanings, call format, and cost. The output schema handles return structure, so that does not need to be repeated. Missing only explicit sibling routing and error-behavior details, which are minor for such a small utility.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, providing only nullable string types. The description compensates fully by documenting both op (with enc|dec values) and data (as <text>), giving an agent the meaning and allowed value format for each parameter.
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 verb and resource: 'Escape or unescape HTML entities.' This clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling encoding tools like api_urlcode or api_base64, so it falls short of a 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The query syntax 'op=enc|dec&data=<text>' implies how to call it, but the description does not help an agent decide between HTML entity encoding and other encoding utilities.
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.