Korean Wrap MCP

Korean phrase-aware line wrapping / 한국어 의미 단위 줄바꿈

wrap_korean_text

Read-onlyIdempotent

Wraps Korean headlines into up to three lines at a set display width using punctuation and Korean phrase heuristics to prevent awkward word splits while preserving wording.

Instructions

Wrap a Korean headline at spaces using punctuation and Korean phrase heuristics. Preserves words; normalizes whitespace. Width is approximate display columns, NOT pixels (Hangul=2, Latin=1). Local and deterministic; no LLM or external API. Check fits: false means the width/line limit cannot be met without splitting a word. Review ambiguous phrasing editorially.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "wrap_korean_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes
`maxLines`	No	Maximum lines. Short text stays on one line; default 3.
`maxWidth`	No	Display columns per line; Hangul usually counts as 2. Default 30.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fits`	Yes
`text`	Yes
`lines`	Yes
`widths`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations by declaring local, deterministic execution with no LLM or external API, that words are preserved and whitespace normalized, that width is approximate display columns rather than pixels, and what fits=false signals. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from 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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then constraints, execution model, and edge-case semantics. No sentence is redundant and nothing requires re-reading.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite an output schema being present, the description still explains the meaning of the fits flag and the editorial-review expectation, and it covers determinism and width semantics. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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?

Width and maxLines are already described in the schema (67% coverage), but the description adds the crucial nuance that columns are approximate and not pixels, and it characterizes the required 'text' parameter as a Korean headline. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether multi-paragraph input is acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Wrap a Korean headline') plus the method used (spaces, punctuation, Korean phrase heuristics). An agent knows exactly what transformation this performs without opening the schema, and there are no siblings to confuse it with.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Scopes usage to Korean headlines and adds an editorial-review caveat for ambiguous phrasing, plus an implicit rule that word-splitting is disallowed. It does not state explicit exclusions or alternatives, but none exist (no sibling tools), so the guidance is nearly complete.

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

wrap_korean_textA