Convert text to uppercase letters for emphasis or formatting needs. This tool takes any input message and returns it in all capital letters.
Echo back the message in uppercase.
Args:
message: The message to transform and echo
Returns:
The message converted to uppercase
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic behavior (transforming and echoing), but lacks details on error handling, performance, or other behavioral traits like rate limits or side effects.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
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 the tool's low complexity, one parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the transformation and return value, but could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.
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?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that the 'message' parameter is 'transformed and echoed', clarifying its purpose. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates adequately, though it could specify format constraints.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Echo back the message in uppercase') and the resource ('message'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'echo' and 'echo_reverse' by specifying the uppercase transformation.
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?
The description implies usage for transforming messages to uppercase, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'echo' or 'echo_reverse'. It provides clear context for its purpose without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tim-akkio/mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server