APIVerve

JSON to JSONP

JSONtoJSONP

Read-only

JSON to JSONP: JSON to JSONP wraps JSON data in a JavaScript callback function to produce valid JSONP output. Pass an object or JSON string with an optional callback identifier to receive the formatted script string. (Cost: 1 credit)

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": {
      "json": "<json>"
    },
    "name": "JSONtoJSONP"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`json`	Yes	The JSON data you want converted into JSONP format. Send it as an object or as a JSON-encoded string.
`callback`	No	The callback function name to wrap the JSON data. Must be a JavaScript identifier, optionally dotted (e.g. myCallback or window.myCallback).	callback

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`error`	No	Error message, null on success
`status`	No	"ok" on success

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful cost disclosure ('Cost: 1 credit') and indicates the result is a formatted script string, but says nothing about size limits, escaping behavior, or error conditions.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's function, followed by the input contract and cost. Slight redundancy with the title/name restatement at the start, but otherwise no wasted wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple two-parameter transform, an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers input shape, optional callback, and cost. It is complete enough for correct invocation, with only edge-case behavior left undocumented.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the default 'callback' and the dotted-identifier rule. The description only restates that the callback is optional, adding no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it wraps JSON data in a JavaScript callback to produce JSONP output. An agent can tell it apart from nearby converter siblings such as JSONtoCSVConverter or Base64EncoderDecoder by the JSONP-specific output, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives usage context ('Pass an object or JSON string with an optional callback identifier to receive the formatted script string'), which is essentially a restatement of the input contract. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over alternative converters or when JSONP output is inappropriate.

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

All APIVerve tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.