Convert numbers between decimal, hexadecimal, binary, and octal bases accurately.
Convert a number between decimal, hex, binary, and octal
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| toBase | Yes | ||
| fromBase | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the conversion action and says nothing about whether the operation is pure, what input formats are accepted, how output is formatted, or whether any transformations like prefix stripping or case handling occur.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the operation and immediately lists the supported bases, which is appropriately concise for a straightforward conversion 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?
Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description omits important details such as accepted string representations (e.g., '0x1A' vs '1A'), case sensitivity, and the exact return format. With no output schema and no annotation support, this is not fully sufficient for an agent to handle varied inputs correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates the base names already present as enum values. It does not clarify the 'value' parameter beyond calling it a number, even though the schema permits strings, leaving ambiguity about acceptable string formats.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Convert', and identifies the resource: a number among the four named bases. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling conversion tools, the bases and operation are clearly stated and match the tool name.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisite context. Although the sibling list contains several converters, no explicit routing to this one or away from others is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.