Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
API Hub MCP — 337+ Tools

API Hub MCP — 337+ Tools

by scotia1973-bot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

line_wrap

Wrap long lines of code or text to a specified width (default 80). Optionally break words longer than the width.

Instructions

Wrap long lines of code or text to a specified width.

Parameters:
    text — Text or code to wrap lines in.
    width — Maximum line width (default: 80).
    break_long — Break words longer than width (default: True).

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "line_wrap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
widthNo
break_longNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.4.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions parameters but does not describe edge cases, handling of existing line breaks, or behavior when break_long is false. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by parameter listings. It is efficient with no unnecessary content.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and the existence of an output schema, the description provides a minimal but functional overview. However, it lacks examples, edge case handling, or details about the return value structure.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it merely repeats parameter names and defaults already visible in the schema, adding no new meaning or context about parameter usage.

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?

The description clearly states 'Wrap long lines of code or text to a specified width,' which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'wrap_text,' which likely performs a similar function.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wrap_text.' The description only explains what the tool does, not the context or prerequisites.

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