MCP Utility Tools

base64_convert

Encode text to Base64 or decode Base64 strings back to plain text. Choose operation to convert instantly.

Instructions

Encode text to Base64, or decode a Base64 string back to text.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "base64_convert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Plain text to encode, or a Base64 string to decode.
`operation`	No	"encode" or "decode" (default "encode").	encode

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It accurately discloses that the tool performs either encoding or decoding based on the operation parameter, which is a transparent account of its behavior. It does not mention error handling for invalid Base64, but for a simple pure-conversion tool this is sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with zero wasted words. It is concise and immediately informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has only two parameters with a 100% schema-described coverage and an output schema, so the return format is already implied. The description fully covers the tool's purpose and behavior; there are no prerequisites, side effects, or edge cases that need explaining for this simple conversion tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond the schema—it restates that text is encoded/decoded, which the schema already says. No additional semantics are provided that aren't already in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs 'Encode' and 'decode' to identify the resource (text) and clearly states the tool's two functions. It distinguishes from siblings like hash_text and convert_case by naming the exact conversion (Base64), making it unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states the operation ('Encode text to Base64, or decode...'), giving clear context for when to use the tool. It doesn't mention alternative tools, but the sibling tools are functionally distinct (e.g., hash_text for hashing), so no exclusion is necessary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server