encodeConvert text into base64, hex, or URL encoding. Specify the text and format to get encoded output.
Legacy alias for util.encode (GET /v1/encode). Prefer util.encode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Text to encode. | |
| format | No | Encoding format. | base64 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Input schema / properties / format / descriptionPrevious value: -"Encoding format"New value: +"Encoding format."Input schema / properties / q / descriptionPrevious value: -"Text to encode"New value: +"Text to encode."v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavior beyond the 'GET' endpoint, which is already implied by the annotations; there is no mention of side effects, edge cases, or safety beyond that.
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?
The description is very compact: 'Legacy alias for util.encode (GET /v1/encode). Prefer util.encode.' The first sentence front-loads the alias nature and the second sentence gives a clear action. It is slightly redundant with the title, but it is not bloated.
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?
Given that the tool is a legacy alias with minimal parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is mostly adequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, though the name and schema fill much of that gap; pointing to util.encode covers substitution, but a functional preview would make it more complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with meaningful descriptions for 'q' (text to encode) and 'format' (base64/hex/url). The description provides no additional parameter detail, so it stays at the baseline for fully documented schemas.
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?
The description says the tool is a 'Legacy alias for util.encode' but never states what the tool actually does (encode text). It mostly restates the title as a redirection, and the functional verb/resource is left to the tool name and 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?
'Prefer util.encode' is an explicit directive that names the sibling alternative and signals that util.encode should be used instead. For a legacy alias this is clear context, though it doesn't specify situations where the old tool might still be required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.