Skip to main content
Glama

hex_encode

Convert text to hexadecimal format for secure data encoding and compatibility with cryptographic operations in the Crypto_MCP server.

Instructions

encode text to hex

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYestext to encode

Implementation Reference

  • The async handler function that encodes the input string to hexadecimal using HexUtil.stringToHex and returns it as text content.
    async ({ content }: { content: string }) => {
        const result = HexUtil.stringToHex(content);
        return {
            content: [
                {
                    type: "text",
                    text: result,
                },
            ],
        };
    }
  • Zod input schema defining the 'content' parameter as a string to encode to hex.
    {
        content: z.string().describe("text to encode"),
    },
  • Registration of the 'hex_encode' tool using server.tool, including name, description, schema, and handler.
        "hex_encode",
        "encode text to hex",
        {
            content: z.string().describe("text to encode"),
        },
        async ({ content }: { content: string }) => {
            const result = HexUtil.stringToHex(content);
            return {
                content: [
                    {
                        type: "text",
                        text: result,
                    },
                ],
            };
        }
    );
  • Core helper method that performs the string to hex encoding logic used by the tool handler.
    static stringToHex(str: string): string {
        return Array.from(str)
            .map(char => char.charCodeAt(0).toString(16).padStart(2, '0'))
            .join('');
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('encode') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for non-text input), performance characteristics, or output format (e.g., string of hex digits). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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—three words—with zero waste. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (simple transformation but with sibling tools), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., hex string format), error cases, or how it differs from other encoding tools, leaving gaps for the agent to navigate the toolset effectively.

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 parameter 'content' documented as 'text to encode'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only repeats the general purpose without elaborating on parameter specifics (e.g., encoding assumptions, input constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'encode text to hex' states a clear verb ('encode') and resource ('text'), but it's vague about the specific transformation (e.g., ASCII/Unicode encoding, byte representation) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'hex_decode' or other encoding tools (e.g., 'base64_encode'). It's adequate but lacks precision for differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention use cases (e.g., data serialization, debugging), prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. This is a significant gap in a context with multiple encoding/decoding siblings.

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