Hopi

Base32 encoder and decoder

hopi_base32_encoder

Read-onlyIdempotent

Encode text to RFC 4648 Base32 or decode Base32 back to text. Encoding maps the UTF-8 bytes of the text into 5-bit groups using the alphabet A to Z then 2 to 7, padded to a multiple of 8 characters with equals signs. Decoding tolerates lowercase input and missing padding, and reports characters outside the alphabet as an error. Source: https://hopi.co.uk/base32-encoder/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No	'encode' turns text into Base32, 'decode' turns Base32 back into text (default encode)	encode
`text`	Yes	The text to encode, or the Base32 string to decode

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`output`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`source_url`	Yes	The tool's page on hopi.co.uk (cite or open to check the figure)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 20, 2026
- addedOutput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "output",
+  "source_url",
+  "summary"
+]
```
First observedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: UTF-8 byte handling, 5-bit grouping, the A-Z/2-7 alphabet, padding rules, lowercase tolerance, missing-padding tolerance, and error reporting for invalid characters. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: the main purpose is in the first sentence, followed by useful encoding/decoding specifics. The source URL is a minor addition and does not bloat the entry.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description covers the algorithm, padding, supported input variants, and failure behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'mode' and 'text' described in the schema itself. The description reinforces parameter meaning but does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description opens with a precise statement: 'Encode text to RFC 4648 Base32 or decode Base32 back to text.' It names the exact resource (Base32), the standard (RFC 4648), and both directions of operation. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like hopi_base64.

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?

The description makes the usage context clear: it is for converting text to Base32 or Base32 back to text, including decode tolerances and error behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the Base32 versus Base64 distinction is evident from the resource name.

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

All Hopi tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?