Transform minified or messy CSS into readable, properly indented code. Specify indent size to control formatting.
Beautify CSS code to make it readable
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | CSS code to beautify | |
| indent_size | No | Number of spaces for indentation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and return behavior. It only states the operation and goal; it does not clarify whether a formatted string is returned, whether input is preserved, or how invalid CSS is handled.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The phrase 'to make it readable' is slightly redundant with 'Beautify' but not harmful; overall the structure is efficient.
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 two-parameter tool the definition is mostly usable, but the return shape is never stated. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left to guess whether the tool returns formatted CSS or writes it somewhere.
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 100%, so the schema already documents code and indent_size adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the existing schema descriptions are sufficient for an agent to understand each parameter.
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 ('Beautify') and resource ('CSS code'), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like beautify_js and minify_css by action and target language. The purpose clause 'to make it readable' adds useful intent.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as beautify_js, minify_css, or is_minified. The description implies a use case but offers no explicit context, exclusions, or decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.