escape_stringEscape a string. format = "js" (\uXXXX), "html" (&#xNN;), "url" (percent-encoding), or "all-nonascii" (js-escape only non-ASCII). Keyless, offline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text to escape. | |
| format | No | js | html | url | all-nonascii (default js). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "text": "Hello & goodbye"
+ },
+ {
+ "format": "html",
+ "text": "Café"
+ },
+ {
+ "format": "url",
+ "text": "path/to?query=value"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds 'Keyless, offline' which confirms no network requests or side effects, and describes format options. No contradictions.
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 extremely concise: one sentence followed by format details. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose.
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 tool, the description covers purpose, all format options, and key traits (keyless, offline). No output schema needed; completeness is high.
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 parameter descriptions. The description adds further clarity by explaining each format option (js, html, url, all-nonascii) and their escaping patterns, which is beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Escape' and resource 'a string', which is unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling 'unescape_string' by implying the opposite operation, and the format options are specific.
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 mentions 'Keyless, offline' which hints at no external dependencies, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Alternatives like 'unescape_string' are not directly compared.
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.