Format numeric strings by grouping digits in threes, such as 200000 to 200,000 or ۲۰۰٬۰۰۰, while accepting Persian and Arabic digits.
Group digits in threes (200000 -> 200,000 or ۲۰۰٬۰۰۰). Accepts Persian/Arabic digits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| digits | No | ||
| separator | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but this is a pure string-transformation function with no side effects, permissions, or destructive behavior to disclose. The description adds that Persian/Arabic digits are accepted, which is useful, but it does not clarify the exact return format for edge cases (negatives, decimals, non-digit input).
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 a parenthetical example pair, zero waste. The example does double duty by demonstrating both output styles, though a brief clause naming the options would have earned more without bloat.
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?
For a 3-parameter pure function with no output schema and no annotations, the examples do convey the expected output shape, which partially covers the missing return documentation. Still, the two optional enum parameters go undescribed, leaving an agent to guess how to select digit style and separator beyond copying an example.
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% for all three parameters. The description's examples (200,000 vs ۲۰۰٬۰۰۰) implicitly signal the separator and digit-style choices, but the parameters 'digits' (ascii/persian) and 'separator' (','/'٬') are never named or explained, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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 states a specific verb+resource (group digits in threes) and gives concrete before/after examples, making the transformation unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling parse_grouped_number (its inverse), so the agent must infer the relationship.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The inverse tool parse_grouped_number is never named, and no context (e.g. display formatting vs. parsing) is given, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.