MyClaw Toolkit MCP Server

url_tools

Fix URL encoding issues by converting strings to or from percent-encoded format.

Instructions

Encode or decode URL strings

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "url_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes	Operation
`text`	Yes	Text to encode or URL to decode

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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.