Skip to main content
Glama

Decodificar Base32 Crockford

crockford32-decode
Read-onlyIdempotent

Decodifica Base32 de Crockford; mapea O→0 e I/L→1, ignora guiones. Cuándo: hay que convertir bytes o texto a esta codificación, o desde ella, con exactitud y sin adivinar. No para: codificar en Base32 de Crockford (crockford32-encode). Efectos secundarios: ninguno (solo lectura, sin red, sin estado guardado). Determinista: la misma entrada da la misma salida. Límites: entrada JSON de hasta 64 KB, 1 s por llamada, resultado de hasta 1 MB.

EN: Decodes Crockford Base32; case-insensitive, maps O→0 and I/L→1, ignores hyphens. When: bytes or text have to be converted to or from this encoding exactly, without guessing. Not for: encoding bytes in Douglas Crockford's Base32 (crockford32-encode). Side effects: none (read-only, no network access, no stored state). Deterministic: the same input gives the same output. Limits: JSON input up to 64 KB, 1 s per call, result up to 1 MB.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
crockford32YesCrockford Base32 string (string; required).
output_encodingNoHow to return decoded bytes (optional; one of: utf8, hex, base64; default "utf8").utf8

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoany JSON value

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / crockford32 / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  "csqpyrk1e8"
      +]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: case-insensitivity, O→0 and I/L→1 mapping, hyphen ignoring, plus concrete limits (64 KB input, 1 s, 1 MB result). Some sentences (no network, no stored state) merely restate annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the definition and cleanly sectioned (Cuándo / No para / Efectos / Límites). It is efficient per language, but the full bilingual duplication roughly doubles length for an agent that only needs one.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, the alternative tool, side effects, determinism and operating limits, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The ambiguous 'Cuándo' phrasing is the only meaningful gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both crockford32 and output_encoding. The description adds the tolerant-input rules but says nothing about the output_encoding choices, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Decodifica Base32 de Crockford') and immediately names the sibling it is not (crockford32-encode). An agent can distinguish it from crockford32-encode without opening either schema, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with plain base32-decode.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly provides a 'No para' clause routing encoding to crockford32-encode, and a 'Cuándo' clause. However the Cuándo wording ('convertir bytes o texto a esta codificación, o desde ella') is muddled for a one-directional decode tool and doesn't distinguish it from the generic base32-decode sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources