Converts text into a URL-safe slug so you can create consistent URL segments, filenames, or identifiers. Set an optional separator to control how words are joined.
Convert text into a URL-safe slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to slugify. | |
| separator | No | Separator character (default -). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies the output is URL-safe and (via the separator parameter) hyphen-joined, but it does not disclose how non-ASCII characters, casing, punctuation, or duplicate separators are handled, nor whether the operation is pure and deterministic.
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 or redundancy. It is appropriately short for a simple utility, though it is arguably too terse to earn a 5 given the missing behavioral detail.
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 two-parameter pure-text utility with no output schema and no annotations, a one-line description is close to adequate, but the slug-transformation rules and separator semantics are unstated and would matter for correct invocation.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about the separator parameter (default '-', valid characters, behavior on multi-char separators), so it does not exceed the schema.
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 verb (Convert) and resource (text) plus the output form (URL-safe slug), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many neighboring text utilities (text_transform, string_case, text_truncate), leaving an agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.
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 statement of when to use this rather than a general text transformer or case converter, and no mention of alternatives or conditions. The description is purely definitional with no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.