Skip to main content
Glama
noor202401938-netizen

cyber-chef-mcp

by noor202401938-netizen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(2)Admin
JavaScript
Local

cyberchef_to_base64

Encodes text or hex-encoded byte data into standard RFC 4648 or URL-safe Base64, with optional URL-safe mode. Use it to convert plaintext or hex input to Base64 for transmission or embedding.

Instructions

Encodes arbitrary text or byte data into standard RFC 4648 or URL-safe Base64 string representation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesThe plaintext string or hex-encoded data to encode into Base64 format.
urlSafeNoOptional boolean. Set to true to generate URL-safe Base64 (replaces '+' with '-' and '/' with '_', omits padding).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / input / description
      Previous value: -"The plaintext string to encode into Base64 format."New value: +"The plaintext string or hex-encoded data to encode into Base64 format."
    • changedInput schema / properties / urlSafe / description
      Previous value: -"Optional boolean. Set to true to generate URL-safe Base64 (substitutes '+' with '-' and '/' with '_', omits padding)."New value: +"Optional boolean. Set to true to generate URL-safe Base64 (replaces '+' with '-' and '/' with '_', omits padding)."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / input / description
      Previous value: -"Plaintext string to encode"New value: +"The plaintext string to encode into Base64 format."
    • changedInput schema / properties / urlSafe / description
      Previous value: -"Produce URL-safe Base64 format"New value: +"Optional boolean. Set to true to generate URL-safe Base64 (substitutes '+' with '-' and '/' with '_', omits padding)."
  3. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly signals a deterministic, non-destructive encoding operation and specifies RFC 4648 vs URL-safe variants, which is useful. However it does not state that output is reversible via the sibling decoder or describe the return shape beyond 'string representation'.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the action and the output format with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the key information leads.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple, single-purpose encoder with no output schema, the description covers the operation and the two output variants adequately. Minor gaps remain around return shape and the relationship to the decode sibling, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (input, urlSafe) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'URL-safe Base64' loosely corresponds to the urlSafe flag but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (encodes) and resource (text/byte data into Base64) plus the output format variants. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling cyberchef_from_base64 by the name, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use it (to encode plaintext or byte data to Base64), but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention the decode counterpart cyberchef_from_base64 as an alternative. Usage is left to inference from the name.

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