transform_textConvert text to uppercase, lowercase, title_case, snake_case, or kebab_case. Use it to standardize strings for code, labels, or display.
Deterministically transform text into a given case style: uppercase, lowercase, title_case, snake_case, or kebab_case.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text to transform. | |
| style | Yes | Which transformation to apply. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral claim — the transformation is deterministic — but says nothing about error handling, empty/non-ASCII input, or idempotency guarantees beyond determinism.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the operation and lists all valid styles with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter, deterministic, non-mutating utility with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it correctly. Only edge-case behavior is left unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum of valid styles. The description repeats that enum list without adding format, ordering, or edge-case nuance, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb (transform) plus resource (text) and enumerates the five target case styles, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling such as analyze_text, but the function is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer that this is the tool for case conversion, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives like analyze_text. Minimum viable for a single-purpose utility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.