aksara-mcp

to_aksara

Transliterate Latin-script Javanese text into Aksara Jawa (Hanacaraka) script. Supports preserving spaces or using explicit standalone vowel letters.

Instructions

Convert Latin-script Javanese text to Aksara Jawa (Hanacaraka script). Supports optional space preservation and explicit standalone vowel letters.

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": "to_aksara"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Latin-script Javanese text to transliterate
`spaces`	No	Preserve spaces in the output (default: false)
`explicit_vowels`	No	Use standalone vowel letters (ꦄ ꦆ ꦈ ꦌ ꦎ) for vowels without a preceding consonant (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions optional space preservation and explicit vowels, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., unsupported characters, error handling) or the exact output format beyond being Aksara Jawa.

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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence stating the core function and a second sentence listing the optional features. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.

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 conversion tool, the description covers the basics but lacks information about return value format, error conditions, or handling of invalid input. Given no output schema and no annotations, more detail would be helpful for reliable usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the two boolean parameters ('space preservation' and 'explicit standalone vowel letters') in context, helping the agent understand their effect beyond the schema's dry descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool converts Latin-script Javanese text to Aksara Jawa (Hanacaraka script). It specifies the exact resource and action, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'from_aksara' which does the reverse.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the description: use this tool to transliterate to Aksara Jawa. The sibling 'from_aksara' provides the alternative for the reverse direction. No explicit when-not or prerequisites, but the context is straightforward.

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

Deploy Server