MyClaw Toolkit is a privacy-first 24-in-1 developer utility MCP server, running most tools locally with select tools using remote APIs for live data.
š§ Utility (Local)
timestamp ā Get the current Unix timestamp and ISO 8601 datetime
uuid ā Generate UUID v4 identifiers
base64 ā Encode or decode Base64 strings
hash ā Generate MD5, SHA1, SHA256, or SHA512 cryptographic hashes
qrcode ā Generate QR codes from any text or URL
color_tools ā Convert colors between Hex, RGB, and HSL formats
json_formatter ā Format, validate, or minify JSON strings
url_tools ā URL-encode or URL-decode strings
text_tools ā Count characters/words, reverse text, or change case
bmi_calculator ā Calculate BMI from height and weight
vcard_generator ā Generate vCard (.vcf) contact files
markdown_to_html ā Convert Markdown text to HTML
wifi_qrcode ā Generate WiFi connection QR codes (password never leaves your device)
š Data & Calculations (API)
exchange_rate ā Get real-time currency exchange rates
crypto_price ā Look up current cryptocurrency prices in any fiat currency
domain_check ā Check domain availability and WHOIS information
compare ā Compare two items side-by-side (text, products, or anything)
quote ā Fetch random inspirational quotes
š Search & Content (API)
web_search ā Search the web via Bing, returning titles, snippets, and URLs
news_search ā Search global news articles
product_search ā Search products across multiple e-commerce platforms
rss_feed ā Fetch and parse any RSS feed by URL
read_page ā Extract readable content from any web page
āļø Processing (API)
ai_translate ā Translate text between languages using the MyMemory AI API
Provides tools for parsing RSS feeds, including fetching and extracting content from RSS/XML feeds.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@MyClaw Toolkit MCP Server Convert 100 USD to EUR"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
24-in-1 developer utility toolkit as an MCP server ā privacy-first. Search the web, convert currencies, check crypto prices, generate QR codes, format JSON, and more ā all from any MCP-compatible AI assistant.
Most tools run 100% locally on your machine ā no data ever leaves your device:
Local tools (zero network) | Tools requiring remote API |
timestamp, uuid, base64, hash | web_search, news_search |
qrcode, wifi_qrcode | product_search, exchange_rate |
color_tools, json_formatter | crypto_price, domain_check |
url_tools, text_tools | rss_feed, read_page |
bmi_calculator, vcard_generator | ai_translate, quote, compare |
markdown_to_html |
WiFi passwords, JSON data, text content, hashes, and Markdown documents are all processed entirely on-device. Only tools that genuinely need external data (search, exchange rates, etc.) call the remote API.
Related MCP server: mcp-dev-utils
npx myclaw-toolkitOr add to your AI client:
Claude Desktop / Cursor / ChatGPT:
{
"mcpServers": {
"myclaw-toolkit": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "myclaw-toolkit"]
}
}
}Claude Code:
claude mcp add myclaw-toolkit -- npx myclaw-toolkitTool | Description |
| Current Unix timestamp & ISO 8601 |
| Generate UUID v4 |
| Base64 encode/decode |
| MD5, SHA1, SHA256, SHA512 |
| QR code generator |
| Hex ā RGB ā HSL converter |
| Format, validate, minify JSON |
| URL encode/decode |
| Text count, reverse, case |
Tool | Description |
| Real-time currency rates (API) |
| Cryptocurrency prices (API) |
| Domain whois & availability (API) |
| BMI calculator (local) |
| vCard (.vcf) generator (local) |
| Side-by-side comparison (API) |
| Random inspirational quotes (API) |
Tool | Description |
| Bing web search |
| Global news search |
| E-commerce product search |
| RSS feed parser |
| Web page content extractor |
Tool | Description |
| Markdown ā HTML (local) |
| WiFi QR code generator (local ā password never sent) |
| AI translation via MyMemory API |
Tool | Description |
| Check API backend status & latency |
Listed on these MCP registries (help others find the toolkit):
Glama ā auto-indexed
MCPFind ā PR pending
mcp.so ā submitted
awesome-mcp-servers (punkpeye) ā PR pending
awesome-mcp-servers (appcypher) ā PR pending
Awesome MCP List ā PR pending
MCP.Directory ā submitted
Official MCP Registry ā published, awaiting indexing
Variable | Default | Description |
|
| API backend URL |
git clone https://github.com/Dusheh/myclaw-toolkit
cd myclaw-toolkit
npm install
npm run dev # Run with tsx
npm run build # Compile TypeScript
npm test # Run 24 unit tests
npm run lint # ESLint checkMIT
Translate text between languages using AI
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to translate | |
| from | No | Source language (auto for auto-detect) | auto |
| to | No | Target language | en |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals only that the translation uses AI, but does not disclose if it is read-only, supported languages, limits, or response format. This is insufficient for a transparent behavioral disclosure.
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?
The description is very concise (one short sentence) with no extraneous words. While it could benefit from more detail, it is not verbose and effectively communicates the core function.
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?
The description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, language coverage, or any constraints. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, a score of 3 reflects adequate but not comprehensive completeness.
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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.
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 clearly states the action (translate text) and the resource (between languages using AI). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings, none of which are translation-related.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. However, since there are no competing translation siblings, the implied usage is clear. A score of 3 reflects the absence of explicit alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Encode or decode Base64 strings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Operation to perform | |
| text | Yes | Text to encode or Base64 to decode |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., input validation, encoding assumptions, error handling). It only states 'Encode or decode' without revealing behavior on invalid input or character encoding defaults.
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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. Front-loaded and to the point.
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?
Given low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate but omits mention of return value format, which is important since there is no output schema.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema's enum and field descriptions, meeting baseline expectation.
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 directly states 'Encode or decode Base64 strings', clearly identifying the verb (encode/decode) and resource (Base64 strings). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling utilities like hash or text_tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Lacks any contextual usage hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Calculate BMI (Body Mass Index) from height and weight
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| height | Yes | Height in centimeters | |
| weight | Yes | Weight in kilograms |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the calculation, lacking details about return format, edge cases, or any side effects.
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?
The description is a single, appropriately sized sentence. It is concise, though it could include more detail without being verbose.
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?
The tool is simple but lacks output schema and behavioral context. The description does not specify return values or usage context, making it incomplete for an agent.
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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds 'from height and weight' but no new semantics beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'BMI' (Body Mass Index). It effectively distinguishes the tool from its diverse siblings like crypto_price or web_search.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply restates the function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Convert colors between hex, RGB, and HSL formats
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | Yes | Color value (hex like #ff0000, rgb like 255,0,0, or hsl like 0,100,50) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, whether all three formats are returned, or input validation. The description is too brief.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, but it is under-specified. Lacks details on output or behavior, reducing its effectiveness.
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?
Tool is simple, but description is minimal. Does not explain return values or provide examples. For a conversion tool, more context on output format would be helpful.
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 the schema already documents the parameter format. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, baseline score of 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?
Description clearly states the action 'Convert' and the resource 'colors between hex, RGB, and HSL formats'. It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like base64 or hash.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description does not provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Compare two items side-by-side (text, products, anything)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | First item to compare | |
| b | Yes | Second item to compare |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only states the action (compare) without explaining output format, limitations, or side effects.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Could be slightly improved with structured details.
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?
No output schema and minimal description leave gaps: unknown return format, behavior for mismatched types, or error handling.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds 'anything' context beyond the schema, broadening the parameter scope but not significantly deeper semantics.
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 clearly states the tool compares two items side-by-side, with examples of text, products, etc. It distinguishes the general comparison scope but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that might have more specific comparison functions.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like text_tools or product_search. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get current cryptocurrency prices in USD or any fiat currency
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | Yes | Cryptocurrency symbol (e.g., BTC, ETH, SOL, USDT) | |
| vs | No | Quote currency (e.g., usd, cny, eur) | usd |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get current' implies a safe read operation, but it doesn't detail potential rate limits, data freshness, or whether the tool accesses a live API. The minimal description is adequate for a simple query but lacks depth.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No extraneous words or repetition.
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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format or note that it fetches a single coin's price, which could be clarified.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current cryptocurrency prices', specifying the optional fiat currency scope. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'exchange_rate' by focusing on crypto assets.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check domain name availability and whois information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to check (e.g., example.com) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like network calls, rate limits, or side effects.
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?
Single sentence that is clear and concise. No wasted words.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on output format and error states.
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 coverage is 100% and parameter description is adequate. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states it checks domain availability and whois, with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools as it is the only domain-focused tool.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get real-time currency exchange rates between any two currencies
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | Yes | Source currency code (e.g., USD, CNY, EUR) | |
| to | Yes | Target currency code (e.g., USD, CNY, EUR) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'real-time' but does not disclose any caching behavior, rate limits, error handling for invalid currency codes, or whether the tool requires any authentication. The description is too sparse to fully inform an AI agent of potential side effects or limitations.
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?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action and result.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about return format (e.g., numeric rate, timestamp) and any caveats about real-time accuracy. Could be more informative.
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%, with each parameter having a clear description and example. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra semantic detail is provided.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get real-time currency exchange rates between any two currencies'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('currency exchange rates'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crypto_price or ai_translate by focusing on fiat currency conversion.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies simple currency conversion but does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for historical rates) or mention any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate cryptographic hashes (MD5, SHA1, SHA256, SHA512)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| algorithm | No | Hash algorithm | sha256 |
| text | Yes | Text to hash |
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 fails to disclose details like output format (hex string?), determinism, or that no salt is used. Minimal behavioral information.
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?
Single concise sentence with key information. No wasted words, but could benefit from bullet points for algorithms or structure.
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 simple tool with good schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. No output schema exists, but the output is straightforward. Lacks context on return format or edge cases.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, such as 'Text to hash' and 'Hash algorithm'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it generates cryptographic hashes and lists the supported algorithms, distinguishing it from sibling tools like base64 (encoding) and compare (comparison). However, it could be more specific about the action (e.g., hash text).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include base64 and other utilities, but no context for selection is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Format, validate, or minify JSON strings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | Operation | format |
| json | Yes | JSON string to process |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists operations but does not explain return values, error handling, or side effects like modification of input.
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?
Single sentence is concise but lacks any structure or front-loading of key information. It is efficient but not well-organized.
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?
Without output schema or annotations, the description should explain behavior more completely. It does not cover what the tool returns or how errors are handled, leaving gaps for a tool with two parameters.
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 baseline is 3, but description adds zero additional meaning beyond what schema already provides. It does not mention parameters at all.
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?
Description clearly states three specific operations on JSON strings. However, it does not differentiate from siblings, but no sibling is a JSON-specific tool, so it's adequately clear.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or suitable scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Convert Markdown text to HTML
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| markdown | Yes | Markdown text to convert |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior, but it only states the conversion without mentioning any limitations (e.g., supported markdown features, error handling, or security considerations). The agent is left to infer that the conversion is straightforward and safe.
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 sentence effectively communicates the tool's function. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded.
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?
The description is too short for a tool with no output schema or annotations. It fails to mention that the output will be an HTML string, which is crucial for an agent to understand what the tool returns.
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?
The single parameter 'markdown' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description repeats the schema's text, adding no additional meaning. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool converts Markdown to HTML, using a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous and unique among listed siblings.
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?
No guidance on when or when not to use this tool, nor any alternatives mentioned. The description assumes the agent knows when to use a markdown converter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search news articles from global sources
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | News search query | |
| count | No | Number of articles |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. No rate limits, source details, or output format information, and annotations are absent.
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?
Description is a single concise sentence. It could benefit from a second sentence for usage context, but it is appropriately front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the result format or additional behavior. It only states the basic function.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool searches news articles from global sources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like web_search or product_search.
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?
No guidance on when to use news_search over alternatives like web_search. No context about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search products across multiple e-commerce platforms
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Product search query | |
| count | No | Number of results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic purpose without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, response format, pagination, or error handling.
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?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded. It states the purpose efficiently, though it could add more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should offer more completeness. It omits details such as result formats, supported platforms, or any constraints beyond what is in the schema.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to add much. However, it does not provide any additional meaning beyond what the schema already defines. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb (Search), resource (products), and scope (across multiple e-commerce platforms). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like news_search or web_search.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate QR codes from text or URLs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text or URL to encode in QR code |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what the output is (e.g., image format, file), any side effects, or permission requirements. The description is too brief to inform the agent about behavioral traits.
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?
The description is concise (one sentence) but omits necessary details about output and usage. It is not front-loaded with critical behavioral info.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the return format and providing context. It fails to do so, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 coverage is 100% with a description for the 'text' parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool generates QR codes from text or URLs. It provides a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool wifi_qrcode, which is a closely related alternative.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wifi_qrcode. Also lacks any context about prerequisites, limitations, or best practices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get inspirational or random quotes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, whether it calls an external API, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotations, the description should offer more transparency.
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?
Single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the purpose. However, it is slightly too minimal and could benefit from more detail without sacrificing conciseness.
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?
Despite low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description fails to specify return format, source, or whether quotes are random or inspirational. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand behavior.
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?
No parameters exist and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but with zero parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'quotes', specifying 'inspirational or random' as the types. However, it lacks detail on whether it returns one or multiple quotes, or how the selection works.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The sibling tools list includes many unrelated utilities, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Extract readable content from any web page (like Readability)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Web page URL to extract content from |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only implies content extraction like Readability but omits limitations (e.g., JavaScript, authentication).
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, description is adequate but lacks details on return format or behavior under edge cases.
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 covers 100% of parameters with clear description; tool description adds minimal context ('like Readability') beyond schema.
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?
Clear verb 'Extract readable content' with specific resource 'web page' and reference to 'Readability' distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_search.
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?
No guidance on when to use vs alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch and parse RSS feeds from any URL
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | RSS feed URL to fetch | |
| count | No | Number of items |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It mentions 'fetch' but does not disclose network dependency, timeouts, error handling, caching, or what 'parse' entails regarding output. The brevity obscures important side effects for an agent invoking a network tool.
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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could benefit from minimal additional context without sacrificing brevity.
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?
Given the simple two-parameter tool and complete schema descriptions, the description is adequate but lacks completeness regarding return format, error conditions, and network behavior. For a tool making external calls, more context is warranted.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain that 'count' limits number of items or that 'url' must be an RSS feed. The description is neutral here.
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 clearly states the tool fetches and parses RSS feeds from any URL, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes well from siblings like web_search, news_search, and read_page, which involve different types of content or actions.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web_search or news_search. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Text processing utilities (count, reverse, case conversion)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Operation | |
| text | Yes | Text to process |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'utilities', failing to disclose safety (read vs write), idempotency, auth needs, or rate limits. While text transformations are typically safe, the description should explicitly state that it does not modify external state.
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?
Single sentence, no filler. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place.
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 simple utility with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it lacks specification for the 'count' action (e.g., word or character count) and does not mention output format, which could cause ambiguity.
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%, with descriptions for both parameters ('Operation', 'Text to process'). The tool description adds a parenthetical list of operations that partially overlaps with the enum, but doesn't add deeper meaning (e.g., what 'count' counts). Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already covers the parameters.
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?
Description clearly states it provides text processing utilities including count, reverse, and case conversion. This distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like ai_translate or base64. However, 'count' is ambiguous (characters, words?) and case conversion isn't explicitly defined as upper/lower/title without cross-referencing the schema.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. Siblings include many text-related tools (ai_translate, hash, markdown_to_html), but the description offers no comparative context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get current Unix timestamp and ISO 8601 datetime
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description uses 'Get' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed, but the tool is inherently simple and safe.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded and concise with no unnecessary words.
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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and simple operation, the description fully covers what the tool doesāreturns Unix timestamp and ISO 8601 datetime.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details; baseline 4 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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and the exact resource 'current Unix timestamp and ISO 8601 datetime'. It uniquely distinguishes from sibling tools like uuid, base64, etc.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. For such a simple tool, usage is self-evident, but formal guidelines would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Encode or decode URL strings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Operation | |
| text | Yes | Text to encode or URL to decode |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'encode or decode URL strings' without detailing encoding style (e.g., percent-encoding), handling of special characters, or output format. This lacks sufficient transparency.
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?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence. Every word is necessary and front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the simple interface (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description should still explain return values and edge cases. It fails to mention output format or any limitations (e.g., only ASCII). Incomplete for a production tool.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional detail on parameter usage or constraints.
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 clearly states the tool's function: encode or decode URL strings. The verb 'encode/decode' and resource 'URL strings' are specific and distinguish it from siblings like base64 or hash.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like base64 or hash. However, the name 'url_tools' and description implicitly indicate its domain, providing some usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate UUID v4 identifiers
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of UUIDs to generate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that it generates UUID v4, implying non-destructive, random generation. This is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Single sentence, no waste. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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?
Given simplicity (1 param, no output schema), description is nearly complete. Could mention that output is an array of UUID strings, but it's easily inferred from count parameter.
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 covers count parameter with description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it generates UUID v4 identifiers, a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hash or timestamp.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For a simple generation tool, usage is somewhat obvious, but could mention it's for creating unique identifiers when no other constraints apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate vCard (.vcf) contact files
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full name | |
| phone | No | Phone number | |
| No | Email address | ||
| org | No | Organization/company |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only says 'generate vCard files'. It omits critical behavioral details: whether it returns the file content or saves it, any limitations on data size, or required permissions. The agent is left guessing how the tool operates.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary depth for brevity.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., .vcf file content as text). It does not. Parameter descriptions are adequate but no usage context is provided.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, hence the baseline score of 3.
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 'Generate vCard (.vcf) contact files' clearly states the verb and resource, matching the tool name. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like qrcode or wifi_qrcode, though it could be more specific about the output.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other formatting or encoding tools in the siblings list. There are no exclusions or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the web using Bing ā returns titles, snippets, and URLs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| count | No | Number of results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only mentions that it uses Bing and the return format, but does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral traits.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no superfluous text.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values. However, it lacks details on error handling, result limits beyond count, or metadata.
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?
The schema already describes both parameters (query and count). The description adds value by specifying the return content (titles, snippets, URLs), which is not in the schema.
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?
Description explicitly states it searches the web using Bing and returns titles, snippets, and URLs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like news_search or product_search.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like news_search or product_search. Usage context is implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate WiFi connection QR codes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ssid | Yes | WiFi network name (SSID) | |
| password | Yes | WiFi password | |
| security | No | Security type | WPA |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, yet the description does not disclose behavioral traits like output format (e.g., image URL, base64), side effects, or any limitations. The user is left unaware of what to expect.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, though adding a brief note on output would improve it.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate but does not fully explain the output or any constraints (e.g., required fields). It meets minimum viability.
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?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, meeting the baseline for this dimension.
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 clearly states the tool's function: generating WiFi connection QR codes. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'qrcode' by specifying WiFi.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'qrcode' or other QR code generators. The description does not mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1ai_translatebase64bmi_calculatorcolor_toolscomparecrypto_pricedomain_checkexchange_ratehashjson_formattermarkdown_to_htmlnews_searchproduct_searchqrcodequoteread_pagerss_feedtext_toolstimestampurl_toolsuuidvcard_generatorweb_searchwifi_qrcodeScored across 24 tools
Each tool has a unique purpose (e.g., ai_translate vs. base64). Minor overlap like qrcode and wifi_qrcode are clearly distinguished by descriptions. No two tools do the same thing.
All tool names use lowercase with underscores consistently. The naming is descriptive and follows a similar pattern across the set, making them easy to predict.
24 tools is on the high side but appropriate for a general-purpose toolkit. Each tool serves a distinct utility, and the count is manageable without being overwhelming.
The toolkit covers many common operations (encoding, crypto, JSON, search), but as a general-purpose set, it will always lack some functions. No major gaps for its intended scope.
238+ dev tools via MCP: JSON, QR, PDF, DNS, hash, UUID, code review, JWT, SSL, WHOIS, and more
49 developer tools via MCP: DNS, WHOIS, IP lookup, JWT, hashing, QR, and more.
Remote MCP server: 10 developer utilities (base64, JWT, DNS, UUID, URL, JSON, UA, IP lookup).
Free MCP server: 32 security & developer API tools -- WHOIS, DNS, CVE checks, IP reputation.
