char_infoInspect each character of a string (up to 64): Unicode code point (U+ hex + decimal), UTF-8 byte sequence, UTF-16 code units, HTML numeric entity, and general category. Keyless, offline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text to inspect. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "text": "Helloπ"
+ },
+ {
+ "text": "cafΓ©"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by mentioning 'offline' and the 64-character limit, which are behavioral constraints not captured in annotations.
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 a single sentence that efficiently lists key output details and the 'keyless, offline' tagline. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), it is front-loaded and free of fluff.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete information: what it does, the input limit, output details, and environment requirements. No gaps remain.
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%, but the description adds meaningful context by specifying the character limit (up to 64) and the exact details returned for each character, going beyond the schema's simple 'text to inspect'.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'inspect' and the resource 'characters of a string', listing specific output details (Unicode code point, UTF-8, etc.). Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like escape_string and unescape_string by focusing on inspection rather than transformation.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies no prerequisites via 'keyless, offline', it lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to other string tools.
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.