Hopi

Unicode inspector

hopi_unicode_inspector

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect text as Unicode. Returns the number of code points (iterated so emoji and other astral characters count as one), the UTF-16 length, the UTF-8 byte count, and per-character details: the character, its code point as U+XXXX, its decimal value, its UTF-8 bytes as hex, its HTML entity and a JavaScript escape. The character list is capped at 2000 entries. Source: https://hopi.co.uk/unicode-inspector/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	The text to inspect

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`summary`	Yes
`utf8Bytes`	Yes
`characters`	Yes
`codePoints`	Yes
`source_url`	Yes	The tool's page on hopi.co.uk (cite or open to check the figure)
`utf16Length`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 20, 2026

addedOutput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "characters",
+  "codePoints",
+  "source_url",
+  "summary",
+  "utf16Length",
+  "utf8Bytes"
+]

First observedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: astral characters are iterated as single code points, the result list is capped at 2000 entries, and the exact per-character fields are specified. No contradiction with 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?

Two dense sentences front-load the main behavior and then enumerate output details efficiently. The source URL is the only extra element and it does not meaningfully bloat the description.

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?

With one required string parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers all needed invocation context. It even discloses the 2000-entry cap, which an agent should know before relying on full results.

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 fully documents the single 'text' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds output details rather than new parameter semantics, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 names a specific action ('Inspect text as Unicode') and enumerates the returned metrics (code points, UTF-16 length, UTF-8 bytes, per-character details), so an agent understands exactly what the tool does. This is distinct from generic text utilities like a simple character counter.

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 description implies when to use it — whenever Unicode-level inspection or byte/codepoint metrics are needed — but it names no alternative tools or exclusion criteria. It leaves the agent to infer the boundary between this and nearby siblings like hopi_character_counter.

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?