Hopi

Text repeater

hopi_text_repeater

Read-onlyIdempotent

Repeat a piece of text a chosen number of times, joined by an optional separator, with optional line numbering. Count is capped at 10000 repeats and the output is capped at 100000 characters. Returns the repeated text plus its character and line counts. Source: https://hopi.co.uk/text-repeater/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	The text to repeat
`count`	Yes	How many times to repeat it (1 to 10000)
`numbering`	No	Prefix each repeat with a number, e.g. '1. ' (default false)
`separator`	No	How to join the repeats (default none)	none
`customSeparator`	No	The separator string to use when separator is 'custom'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lines`	No
`capped`	No
`result`	No
`summary`	Yes
`characters`	No
`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: +[
+  "source_url",
+  "summary"
+]
```
First observedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: the 10000-repeat cap, the 100000-character output cap, and the fact that it returns repeated text plus character and line counts. No contradiction exists.

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 three tight sentences: the core operation, the limits, and the return value. Every sentence earns its place, and the key behavior is front-loaded. The source URL is a minor but acceptable addition.

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?

The description is complete for this tool's complexity: it covers operation, configuration options, hard limits, and return values. Parameter details are fully provided by the input schema, and the annotations cover the safety profile, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all five parameters. The description mentions separator and numbering, matching schema fields, but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Repeat a piece of text a chosen number of times', and clarifies optional separator and line numbering behavior. This clearly distinguishes the tool from text-manipulation siblings like reverse_text, text_splitter, or remove_duplicate_lines.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use case is implied by the clear description, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions and no named alternatives. For a simple utility tool this is adequate, but the guidance is not explicit.

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?