Converts integer values to Persian ordinal words (3 → سوم, 21 → بیست و یکم) for Persian/RTL interfaces, with an option to render 1 as یکم instead of اول.
Persian ordinal words: 3 -> سوم, 21 -> بیست و یکم, 30 -> سیام. 1 gives اول (set firstAsYekom for یکم).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| firstAsYekom | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral quirk – 1 yielding اول plus the firstAsYekom switch for یکم – but says nothing about out-of-range inputs, non-integers, or the 0/999999999 bounds the schema allows.
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 tight sentence with the core mapping front-loaded and the edge-case switch appended. No padding, though the parenthetical could be clearer about what firstAsYekom actually defaults to.
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 two-parameter no-output utility the coverage is nearly adequate, but with zero annotation and zero schema-description support the terse note on firstAsYekom leaves the agent guessing about ranges and defaults.
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%, so both parameters rely on the description. It explains firstAsYekom's effect by example ('set firstAsYekom for یکم') and the value parameter is evident from the mappings, but neither is given explicit semantics or default behavior.
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?
Names the specific resource and operation ('Persian ordinal words') and illustrates with concrete mappings (3 -> سوم, 21 -> بیست و یکم), so an agent immediately knows it converts integers to Persian ordinals. It stops short of naming the cardinal sibling (number_to_persian_words) it must not be confused with.
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 statement of when to use this versus cardinal-conversion siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The examples imply ordinal context but leave the agent to infer that this is the ordinal-only variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.