devutils-mcp-server

case_convert

Transform a string between common casing styles like camelCase, PascalCase, snake_case, kebab-case, and more with a specified target format.

Instructions

Convert a string between different casing styles: camelCase, PascalCase, snake_case, kebab-case, CONSTANT_CASE, Title Case, and more.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "input": "<input>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "case_convert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	The string to convert
`to`	Yes	Target case style

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so description must cover behavioral traits. It lists supported cases but omits edge-case behavior (e.g., empty strings, mixed input) and transformation rules (e.g., handling of spaces). No contradiction with annotations (none provided).

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 tool with two params and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and supported cases. Some users may want more detail on handling invalid inputs, but overall complete for a straightforward conversion.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema (e.g., listing cases already in enum). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool converts strings between casing styles, listing multiple examples (camelCase, PascalCase, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like base64_encode or hex_decode, which handle different conversions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The name and description imply case conversion, but no 'when-not' or mention of other tools like slugify for related transformations.

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