Hopi

NATO phonetic alphabet translator

hopi_nato_phonetic_alphabet

Read-onlyIdempotent

Spell text out using the NATO phonetic alphabet (Alfa, Bravo, Charlie and so on), or convert a phonetic spelling back into plain text. Spaces become (space). When converting back, common variants such as Alpha, Juliet, Xray, Niner and Fife are accepted; unrecognised words appear as #. Source: https://hopi.co.uk/nato-phonetic-alphabet/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	The text or phonetic spelling to convert
`direction`	No	't2n' text to phonetic (default), 'n2t' phonetic to text	t2n

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`unknown`	Yes
`direction`	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: +[
+  "direction",
+  "result",
+  "source_url",
+  "summary",
+  "unknown"
+]

First observedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes further by disclosing concrete output behavior: spaces become '(space)', common spelling variants like Alpha and Niner are accepted, and unrecognised words appear as '#'. This is valuable operational detail 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?

Three concise sentences cover purpose, edge-case behavior, and source. Core functionality is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 translation tool with a rich schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers both conversion directions, formatting quirks, accepted variants, and failure behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke and understand 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the 'direction' enum and default. The description adds context about accepted variants when converting n2t, but does not significantly extend parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Spell text out using the NATO phonetic alphabet' or 'convert a phonetic spelling back into plain text.' It makes the bidirectional nature of the tool immediately clear and distinguishes it from unrelated translator siblings like morse or cipher tools.

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 establishes clear usage context: use it for NATO phonetic spelling conversion in either direction, guided by the 'direction' parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the tool's purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to select it.

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?