Sort, deduplicate, or reverse multi-line text, with numeric and case-insensitive options, to organize lists and remove duplicate lines.
Sort, deduplicate, or reverse lines of text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Multi-line text to sort. | |
| numeric | No | Sort numerically (default false). | |
| reverse | No | Sort descending (default false). | |
| deduplicate | No | Remove duplicate lines (default false). | |
| case_insensitive | No | Case-insensitive sort (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 burden. It does not state that the operation is a pure, side-effect-free transformation returning new text, nor how the three behaviors interact (e.g., whether sort and deduplicate can be combined). The low-risk nature of the tool makes these omissions minor, but the disclosure is still thin.
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 zero filler. Every word maps to a real capability of the 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 5-parameter pure function with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly adequate but leaves two gaps: whether the three operations are mutually exclusive (the word 'or' suggests so, while the boolean parameters allow combining them) and what the returned text looks like.
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%: numeric, reverse, deduplicate, and case_insensitive are all documented in the schema. The description's mention of the three operations overlaps with those structured fields and adds no syntax, ordering, or combination detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names specific verbs and the resource: sort, deduplicate, reverse lines of text. An agent immediately knows this is a line-oriented text transformation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as reverse_text, text_transform, or string_case, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternative tools. The agent must infer from the name alone when this should be chosen over the many other text-manipulation siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.