Check if document conversion from source to target format is possible, verifying compatibility among Markdown, HTML, DOCX, PDF, and Text.
Check if conversion from source format to target format is supported
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_format | Yes | Source format | |
| target_format | Yes | Target format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Check if' clearly conveys a read-only, non-executing behavior, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose the return shape (e.g., boolean) or behavior when a pair is unsupported.
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?
A single, compact sentence front-loads the action and resource with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple two-parameter predicate with enumerated values, the core purpose is covered. However, the absence of an output schema means the return value is not explained, and the description does not explicitly connect this tool to its siblings as a pre-conversion guard.
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% and both parameters are fully enumerated, so the schema already explains the parameters. The description only restates the source-to-target relationship and adds no extra meaning about formats or edge cases.
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 states a specific predicate: checking whether a conversion between two given formats is supported. It directly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by naming the check operation rather than listing formats or performing the conversion.
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 that this tool should be used when an agent needs to verify support for a specific format pair, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of convert_document or list_supported_formats. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.