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

tool-mcp-server

by maple-awa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

tool_file_to_base64

Encode a file into base64 format for simplified data transfer, storage, or integration into text-based protocols.

Instructions

[data] File To Base64

Parameters:

  • file (bytes): File

Outputs:

  • base64 (string): Base64

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_file_to_base64"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoFile (base64 file payload)
base64NoBase64

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers only a bare parameter/output listing. It discloses no details about conversion mechanics, edge cases (e.g., binary data, file size limits), or any behavioral traits beyond the basic transformation, placing all burden on the minimal text.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short and uses clear labels (Parameters, Outputs), but it repeats the tool name and provides only minimal content. It is not empty, but it under-specifies rather than being effectively concise, as every sentence adds little information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with a nested input object and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to clarify the input format (binary bytes vs. base64 object) and the output structure, making it hard for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially given the complex schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description's parameter note ('file (bytes)') contradicts the schema, where 'file' is an object with base64, filename, and mimeType properties. It also lists an 'Outputs' section but does not clarify the relationship between the top-level 'base64' input property and the output, adding no meaningful semantics beyond an ambiguous schema.

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 simply restates the tool name ('File To Base64') without defining the action beyond the title. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like tool_image_to_base64 or tool_base64_to_file, and the core purpose is only implied by the name.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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