devutils-mcp-server

html_encode

Encode special characters to HTML entities, preventing XSS and ensuring correct display in web pages.

Instructions

Encode special characters in a string to HTML entities.

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>"
    },
    "name": "html_encode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	The string to HTML-encode

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. It only states the basic function without disclosing specific behavior (e.g., which characters are encoded, handling of all HTML entities). For a simple tool, more detail would be helpful.

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?

One sentence, no redundant information. Appropriately concise for a straightforward tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple utility tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is acceptable but could be improved with examples or details on the character set.

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 description 'The string to HTML-encode'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Encode special characters in a string to HTML entities' clearly states the tool's action (encode), resource (string), and outcome (HTML entities). It distinguishes itself from siblings like html_decode or url_encode.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., html_decode, url_encode). The description provides no context for selection or exclusion criteria.

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