Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tool-mcp-server

tool-mcp-server

by maple-awa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

tool_encoding

Encode input strings using a specified encoding and mode. Get the encoded output for your data processing needs.

Instructions

[crypto] Encoding

Parameters:

  • input (string): Input

  • encoding (string): Encoding

  • mode (string): Mode

Outputs:

  • output (string): Output

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tool_encoding"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoMode
inputNoInput
outputNoOutput
encodingNoEncoding

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, limitations, or exact behavior. It does not mention supported encodings, error handling, or whether the operation is reversible or destructive.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is very short but not appropriately concise—it is under-specified. It lists parameters without any useful content, making it sparse rather than efficiently informative. The structure is clean but the content is nearly empty.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description. For a tool with four parameters and no return value details, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the meaning of 'mode', available encoding types, or what the output will look like.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, both the schema and description merely repeat parameter names as their descriptions ('Input', 'Encoding', 'Mode'). The description adds no additional meaning, examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters, so it fails to explain how to use them.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description labels the tool as 'Encoding' but does not specify what kind of encoding (base64, hex, URL, etc.) or what operation it performs. It reads more as a category title than a clear purpose, and the sibling context shows many similar crypto tools without differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_crypto, tool_hash, or tool_base64_to_file. The description lacks any indication of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion scenarios.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools