MCP X-Platform

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

detect_encoding_issues

Analyzes files for encoding mismatches, byte order marks, and non-UTF encodings that create cross-platform compatibility issues.

Instructions

Detect file encoding issues that may cause cross-platform problems

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "detect_encoding_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Directory or file path to analyze
`checkBOM`	No	Check for BOM (Byte Order Mark) issues
`preferredEncoding`	No	Preferred file encoding	UTF-8

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires file access, or has side effects. For a detection tool, assuming read-only is reasonable, but it's not explicitly stated.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is very brief and could include more context without losing conciseness. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple detection tool.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. The agent does not know what the tool returns (e.g., a list of issues, a report, or just boolean). Sibling tools have more specific names, but this one leaves ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%; each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since no value is added but nothing is missing.

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 clearly states the verb 'detect' and the resource 'file encoding issues' with a specific context 'cross-platform problems'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_line_endings' and 'detect_platform_apis', which address different aspects.

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 siblings or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or specific scenarios. The agent has no context to decide between this and similar analysis tools.

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

Deploy Server