url_decode_2
URL decode a string.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to URL decode |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decoded | Yes | ||
| encoded | Yes |
URL decode a string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to URL decode |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decoded | Yes | ||
| encoded | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action, without disclosing any behavioral details such as error handling, encoding specifics, or limitations.
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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the existence of a sibling tool with an identical description, the description lacks critical context to differentiate them. It is insufficient for an agent to decide which tool to invoke.
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% and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'URL decode' and resource 'a string', making the basic function obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'url_decode', which likely serves the same purpose.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'url_decode' or 'url_encode'.
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.