Check which output formats are supported for a given input extension, or view all accepted input extensions to identify possible conversions.
Ask what this converter can do. With an extension, returns the output formats proven for it. With no argument, returns every input extension accepted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| extension | No | Optional input extension, with or without the dot, such as "docx" or ".png". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the conditional behavior based on the argument, which is useful, but it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it can fail for unknown extensions, or what the response format looks like. The core behavior is transparent enough for a listing tool.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place. The conditional behavior is explained efficiently without redundancy.
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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could mention what happens with an unknown extension or clarify the return format, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely complete.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the extension parameter well. The description adds the key semantic detail that the parameter is optional and changes the output, which is valuable, but it doesn't add much beyond that.
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 clearly states the tool lists conversion capabilities: with an extension it returns proven output formats, and with no argument it returns all accepted input extensions. It distinguishes itself from convert_file by focusing on discovery rather than execution, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.
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 description explains the two calling modes (with and without an extension) and what each returns, giving an agent clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention convert_file as an alternative, but the behavior is well-specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.