bitg — new Uzbek alphabet

Convert Uzbek text to the new alphabet (bitg)

convert_text

Read-onlyIdempotent

Converts Uzbek text written in the old Latin alphabet (o‘ g‘ sh ch, any apostrophe) or in Cyrillic to the official new Uzbek Latin alphabet adopted in 2026 (Ö ö, Ğ ğ, Ş ş, Ç ç; law in force from 2027-04-22). Deterministic, rule-based bitg engine: keeps English words, links, code and foreign names intact. Use it whenever the user asks to write, convert or check Uzbek text in the new alphabet; also converts back to the old Latin alphabet or to Cyrillic.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "convert_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Uzbek text, up to 20000 characters.
`direction`	No	to_new: old Latin or Cyrillic -> new 2026 alphabet (default). to_old: new -> old Latin (oʻ gʻ). to_cyrillic: Latin -> Uzbek Cyrillic.	to_new
`old_style`	No	Only for to_old: official uses oʻ gʻ (U+02BB), ascii uses o' g'.	official

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`direction`	Yes
`converted_by`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: deterministic rule-based engine, English words/links/code/foreign names left intact, and the legal effective date. It doesn't say what happens to unsupported or ambiguous input, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the conversion itself and followed by behavioral guarantees and usage. The parenthetical law dates and alphabet glyph lists are dense but informative rather than redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and input constraints live in the schema. Combined with the script-preservation and determinism notes, an agent has what it needs to call it; only edge-case behavior (invalid or non-Uzbek input) is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the `text` parameter accepts Cyrillic as well as old Latin, which matters because the default direction is to_new. It also frames the reverse conversions that map to the `direction` enum, though it doesn't touch `old_style`.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Converts Uzbek text'), names both accepted source scripts (old Latin with o‘ g‘ sh ch or Cyrillic) and the exact target alphabet (Ö ö, Ğ ğ, Ş ş, Ç ç). The scope is unambiguous even without siblings to differentiate from.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'whenever the user asks to write, convert or check Uzbek text in the new alphabet' and notes it also converts back to old Latin or Cyrillic. It gives clear triggering conditions but no exclusions (e.g. what to do with non-Uzbek or heavily mixed text), leaving a small gap.

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

All bitg — new Uzbek alphabet 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.