Encode text into URL percent-encoding to make it safe for web requests; spaces become plus signs.
URL-encode a string using percent-encoding (spaces become +).
| 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. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait — that spaces become '+' — which is a real encoding-convention decision point, but it says nothing about error handling, invalid input, or idempotency.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the key encoding convention is appended where it matters.
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?
Output schema exists, so return format needn't be explained, and the tool is a simple one-param transform. The description covers the essential behavior, with the only gap being no pointer to the decode counterpart 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 0% but there is only one parameter ('text'), whose meaning is largely self-evident. The description's phrase 'a string' maps to that parameter but adds no format or constraint detail beyond it.
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?
States a specific verb (URL-encode) and resource (a string), with a clarifying detail that it uses percent-encoding. The verb 'encode' naturally distinguishes it from sibling encoding_url_decode, though the sibling isn't named explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the inverse tool (encoding_url_decode), and no exclusions (e.g., when to prefer base64 or hex encoding from sibling tools). Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.