Lists all supported file encodings with names, aliases, and descriptions, helping you find the correct encoding for read, write, or convert operations.
List all 45 supported encodings with name, aliases, and description. Use this to find the correct encoding name for read/write/convert operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| encodings | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.3.0v2.0.1v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds valuable specifics the annotations lack: it is a static, complete enumeration ("all 45") with a defined return shape, which tells the agent it can cache/trust the list rather than probe incrementally.
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?
Two sentences, zero padding: the first gives the inventory and its shape, the second immediately states the purpose. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
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 the description is not obligated to document return values, yet it still names the returned fields. Combined with the annotations and zero-parameter schema, nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs, and the empty schema correctly signals the tool is called with no arguments.
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 (List) plus resource (supported encodings) and even quantifies the resource (45) and the fields returned (name, aliases, description). An agent can immediately distinguish this reference-lookup tool from siblings like convert_encoding or detect_encoding, which perform operations rather than enumerate.
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?
"Use this to find the correct encoding name for read/write/convert operations" gives a clear when-to-use context and ties the tool to the encoding-consuming operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., detect_encoding for an unknown file), so it falls short of a full when-not/alternative statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.