Encode a plain text string into Base64 format for safe transmission, storage, or embedding in JSON, XML, or URLs. Provide the text input to receive the encoded output.
Base64-encode a string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It omits anything about non-ASCII/UTF-8 handling, padding behavior, size limits, or side effects, giving the agent nothing beyond the tautological operation itself.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded and waste-free. It is appropriately sized for a trivial operation, though it is arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than optimally concise.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the tool has one simple required input. For a deterministic pure-function utility, the description is nearly sufficient, with only minor gaps around encoding 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 description coverage is 0%, but there is only one required parameter whose meaning is fully conveyed by the word 'string' in the description and the 'text' property name. The description adds little beyond the schema, which is acceptable for a single obvious input.
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 (encode) and resource (string) in Base64, which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from encoding_base64_decode. It does not explicitly name the inverse sibling, but the encode/decode pair is self-evident from the name and description.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as encoding_url_encode, encoding_hex_encode, or encoding_base64_decode. The description states only what it does, leaving context entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.