Encode text with run-length compression (aaabbb to 3a3b) or decode it back to the original string, useful for compacting repeated characters in browser automation and agent workflows.
Run-length encode or decode text (e.g. aaabbb to 3a3b).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to encode or encoded text to decode. | |
| decode | No | Decode instead of encode (default false). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the encode/decode modes and gives an encoding example, but does not describe edge cases, whitespace handling, default behavior, or output format beyond the example.
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 sentence with a useful inline example. It is front-loaded, waste-free, and appropriately sized for a simple transformation 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?
For a simple pure text transformation with complete schema coverage, the description gives enough context to call the tool correctly. It lacks a decode example and any output-format notes, but the schema covers the input semantics.
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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 operation (run-length encode/decode) and resource (text), with a concrete example. It does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools such as rle_encode_decode or rl_encode, so it misses the top score.
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 implies usage through the encode/decode operation but provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions for choosing this tool over similar siblings. There is no explicit exclusion or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.