Everyday DevTools MCP

url_encode

Percent-encode text for safe use in URLs by converting reserved characters into valid percent-encoded sequences.

Instructions

Percent-encode text for use in a URL.

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": "url_encode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the basic encoding action and omits details like which characters get encoded, whether spaces become %20 or +, handling of Unicode, and whether the output is a plain string. For a simple utility this may be less critical, but the description provides no behavioral traits beyond the core action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently without any structural issues.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter encoding tool, the description is minimally viable but lacks important context such as encoding standard, return format, and edge-case behavior. Given no annotations or output schema, more detail would help an agent invoke it correctly in ambiguous cases.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'text'. The description only implies that the input is text to encode, adding no format or constraint details. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter description.

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 states a specific action: percent-encode text for URL usage. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like url_decode or base64_encode. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, leaving a slight gap in sibling 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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as url_decode or base64_encode. The implied usage is clear from the name and description, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server