ZapifyAPI MCP Server

base64_encode_decode

Encode text to Base64 or decode Base64 to text. Transform strings for transmission or restore original content.

Instructions

Encode text to Base64 or decode Base64 to text.

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": {
      "input": "<input>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "base64_encode_decode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes
`action`	Yes	"encode" or "decode"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function but omits details about input validation, error handling (e.g., invalid Base64), or behavior for edge cases (e.g., empty input). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose with no redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but misses important context such as error handling for invalid actions or malformed Base64. It is not complete enough to prevent misuse in edge cases.

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 50% (only 'action' is described). The description adds meaning to 'input' by implying it accepts text for encoding or Base64 for decoding, but does not clarify the exact format of 'action' beyond what the schema already states. The description partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses specific verbs 'Encode' and 'decode' with a clear resource ('Base64'), and comprehensively covers both operations. It fully distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other tool handles Base64 conversion.

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 description implies usage for encoding text to Base64 or decoding Base64 to text, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No direct comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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