Skip to main content
Glama

base64_encode

Convert text to Base64 encoding for secure data transmission and storage. This tool transforms plain text into encoded format compatible with various systems.

Instructions

encode text to base64

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYestext to encode

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the base64_encode tool: takes input content, encodes it using Base64Util.encode, and returns the result as text content.
    async ({ content }) => {
        const result = Base64Util.encode(content);
        return {
            content: [
                {
                    type: "text",
                    text: result,
                },
            ],
        };
    }
  • Input schema for the base64_encode tool: defines 'content' as a required string parameter.
    {
        content: z.string().describe("text to encode"),
    },
  • Registration of the base64_encode tool using server.tool, including name, description, schema, and handler.
    server.tool(
        "base64_encode",
        "encode text to base64",
        {
            content: z.string().describe("text to encode"),
        },
        async ({ content }) => {
            const result = Base64Util.encode(content);
            return {
                content: [
                    {
                        type: "text",
                        text: result,
                    },
                ],
            };
        }
    );
  • Helper utility function Base64Util.encode that performs the actual base64 encoding using Node.js Buffer.
    static encode(input: string): string {
        return Buffer.from(input).toString('base64');
    }
  • src/index.ts:18-18 (registration)
    Invocation of registerBase64Tool in the main server setup, which registers the base64_encode tool.
    registerBase64Tool(server);
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'encode text to base64' which implies a transformation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, reversible (via base64_decode), character encoding assumptions (e.g., UTF-8), error handling for invalid input, or output format details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the essential action. Every word earns its place: 'encode' specifies the action, 'text' specifies the input type, and 'to base64' specifies the output format. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (base64 string), whether padding is included, line length limitations, or character set used. For a transformation tool with siblings offering similar functions, more context about the specific base64 implementation would be helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'content' clearly documented as 'text to encode'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides - it essentially restates the parameter purpose. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description, which applies here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'encode' and the resource 'text to base64', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'base64_decode' by specifying the encoding direction. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what type of data is being encoded beyond 'text', which could be slightly more specific given sibling tools handle various data formats.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when base64 encoding is appropriate (e.g., for binary data representation, URL safety) or when to choose other encoding tools like 'hex_encode' or cryptographic tools like 'aes_encrypt'. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/1595901624/crypto-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server