Decodes percent-encoded URL query strings and path segments into readable UTF-8 characters, converting values like %41%64%6d%69%6e back to plain text.
Decodes percent-encoded URL query strings and path segments into standard UTF-8 characters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | The percent-encoded URL string or parameter to decode (e.g., '%41%64%6d%69%6e'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Input schema / properties / input / descriptionPrevious value: -"The percent-encoded URL string or parameter to decode (e.g., '%41%64%6d%69%6e' or 'hello+world%21')."New value: +"The percent-encoded URL string or parameter to decode (e.g., '%41%64%6d%69%6e')."v1.0.2Input schema / properties / input / descriptionPrevious value: -"URL-encoded string"New value: +"The percent-encoded URL string or parameter to decode (e.g., '%41%64%6d%69%6e' or 'hello+world%21')."v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output encoding (UTF-8), which is useful, but says nothing about edge cases such as malformed sequences, whether '+' is treated as a space in query strings, or whether errors are raised or passed through.
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 that names the action and the exact scope with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 one-parameter, deterministic pure transform with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does and the output encoding. Return value is self-evident, though edge-case behavior is left unstated.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already documents the input including an example. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?
States a specific verb (decodes), a specific resource (percent-encoded URL query strings and path segments), and the output form (standard UTF-8 characters). The direction is unambiguous, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling cyberchef_url_encode without opening either schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the clear name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use clause and no sibling is named as an alternative. For a single-purpose transform this is acceptable but not instructive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.