Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cmcp

cmcp

by DeveshB-1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Utilities/Get UTF8 Encoded Response

utilities_get_utf8_encoded_response
Read-only

Fetches a UTF-8 encoded response containing Greek, Latin, East Asian, and other multilingual text to verify charset handling and response display.

Instructions

If a response of an endpoint requires to send data beyond the basic English / ASCII character set, the charset parameter in the Content-Type response header defines the character encoding policy.

This endpoint returns an UTF8 character encoded response body with text in various languages such as Greek, Latin, East Asian, etc. Postman can interpret the character encoding and use appropriate methods to display the character set in responses.

(Postman request: Utilities/Get UTF8 Encoded Response | GET https://postman-echo.com/encoding/utf8)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "utilities_get_utf8_encoded_response"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the returned body contains multi-language text and references the Content-Type charset header, but never states that this is a fixed demo/echo endpoint with static content, nor anything about response size or latency.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The middle paragraph and the Postman request line are directly useful, but the first paragraph is generic HTTP education about the charset header that does not help an agent select or invoke this tool. Roughly a third of the text does not earn its place.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does describe the returned body's character set and language coverage. It could be clearer that the payload is a fixed sample, but nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for.

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 concrete outcome: the endpoint returns a UTF8-encoded response body containing text in Greek, Latin, East Asian and other scripts. That is a clear verb+resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling response-variant demos such as utilities_gzip_compressed_response or utilities_deflate_compressed_response, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The opening sentence gives conceptual context (a response needing characters beyond ASCII), which implies the tool is for testing character-encoding handling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling utilities, so usage must be inferred.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools