Turn text into Base64, or Base64 back into text. URL-safe and data URIs work too.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "base64"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses bidirectional operation and support for URL-safe output and data URIs, but leaves out error behavior on invalid input, size limits, and — critically — how direction is determined given the body schema defines no fields.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core conversion behavior and followed by the variant support. No filler or redundancy.
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 codec the description covers the input/output relationship and variants adequately. But the body schema defines no properties, so an agent still lacks the request field shape and the mechanism for specifying direction, which are invocation-critical.
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 tool has zero defined parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4 under the scoring rules, and schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of URL-safe and data-URI support hints at modes but adds no parameter-level meaning because no parameters exist to document.
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: converting text to Base64 and back, plus URL-safe and data-URI variants. It is immediately clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from nearby codecs such as url_codec or unicode.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Turn text into Base64, or Base64 back into text' and by the mention of URL-safe and data URIs. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling converters, and no statement on how the direction (encode vs. decode) is selected.
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.