url_decodeDecode percent-encoded text to its original readable form, enabling accurate interpretation of URL data.
Decode percent-encoded text. Web version: https://buildutilities.com/url-codec
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the core action, but given the trivial nature of the operation and the annotation coverage, this is acceptable. No contradiction exists.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It immediately states the operation and includes a helpful web-version link. Every word earns its place, making it a model of conciseness.
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 simple decode operation with a single parameter, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is complete. The expected behavior and input are fully specified, and the web link adds optional context. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 the description must clarify parameter meaning. The description 'Decode percent-encoded text' explicitly defines that the 'text' parameter should contain percent-encoded content, adding value beyond the schema's mere 'type: string'. It conveys the required input format and intent effectively for a single-parameter tool.
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 ('Decode') and resource ('percent-encoded text'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling url_encode by focusing on decoding. The single-sentence definition is precise and leaves no room for misinterpretation.
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?
The usage is implied by the description and name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like url_encode, or any mention of conditions or exclusions. While obvious for a simple utility, the description does not actively route the agent, so it misses the higher bar for explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.