Skip to main content
Glama
noor202401938-netizen

cyber-chef-mcp

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

cyberchef_url_encode

Encodes reserved and unsafe characters into percent-encoded (%XX) format for safe URL transmission. Use it to prepare strings for query parameters, paths, or URLs.

Instructions

Encodes reserved and unsafe characters in a string into standard percent-encoded format (%XX) for safe URL transmission.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesThe plaintext string to URL encode.
encodeAllNoOptional boolean. If true, encodes all characters including alphanumerics into percent format. Default is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / encodeAll / description
      Previous value: -"Optional boolean. If true, encodes all characters including alphanumerics into percent format. Default is false (standard RFC 3986 encoding)."New value: +"Optional boolean. If true, encodes all characters including alphanumerics into percent format. Default is false."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / encodeAll / description
      Previous value: -"Encode all characters including alphanumerics"New value: +"Optional boolean. If true, encodes all characters including alphanumerics into percent format. Default is false (standard RFC 3986 encoding)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / input / description
      Previous value: -"Raw string to encode"New value: +"The plaintext string to URL encode."
  3. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core transformation and the default scope (reserved/unsafe characters only, i.e. encodeAll=false behavior), but says nothing about handling of already-encoded input, idempotency, non-ASCII/Unicode characters, or error cases.

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 tight sentence with no waste, front-loading the verb, the scope of characters, and the output format.

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 pure-function encoder with a fully documented 2-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. Return format is self-evident and no destructive/side-effect disclosure is required.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by specifying that only reserved and unsafe characters are encoded, which clarifies the default (encodeAll=false) behavior of the optional boolean parameter.

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 ('reserved and unsafe characters in a string') plus the output format (%XX). It's clearly distinguishable from the sibling cyberchef_url_decode by the verb, but the description never names that inverse tool to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Provides an implied use context ('for safe URL transmission') but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusion or reference to the sibling cyberchef_url_decode or other encoding tools.

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