CrossingKey MCP

Purchase Conservative JSON Repair

json.repair

Idempotent

PAID $0.01 USDC on Base via x402. Validates JSON and repairs a limited set of formatting errors. May return supplied content. Calling this MCP tool returns a payment challenge and does not autonomously spend funds.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Input text, maximum 65536 UTF-8 bytes.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset`	No
`error`	No
`input`	No
`price`	No
`pay_to`	No
`status`	No
`accepts`	No
`network`	No
`resource`	No
`capability`	No
`extensions`	No
`purchaseId`	No
`instruction`	No
`x402Version`	No
`entitlementId`	No
`execution_url`	No
`execution_mode`	No
`payment_required`	No
`payment_required_header`	No
`settlement_expectations`	No
`confirmation_expectations`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
```

addedOutput schema / properties / accepts

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "properties": {},
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / entitlementId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / error
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / extensions

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / purchaseId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / resource

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / status
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / x402Version

Added value: +{
+  "const": 2,
+  "type": "number"
+}

removedOutput schema / required

Removed value: -[
-  "payment_required",
-  "execution_mode",
-  "capability",
-  "input",
-  "price",
-  "asset",
-  "network",
-  "pay_to",
-  "execution_url",
-  "payment_required_header",
-  "settlement_expectations",
-  "confirmation_expectations",
-  "instruction"
-]

AddedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already covering safety (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description still adds real behavioral context: the $0.01 USDC cost on Base via x402, the fact that a payment challenge is returned, and the assurance that it does not autonomously spend funds. The only weak point is the vague 'May return supplied content' clause.

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 sentences with no padding. The pricing/payment sentence is front-loaded, though an agent might prefer the functional purpose statement before the commercial terms; still, every sentence carries information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a one-parameter tool, the description adds the material facts an agent needs — cost, payment-challenge behavior, and no autonomous spending — leaving nothing essential missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Input text, maximum 65536 UTF-8 bytes'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Validates JSON and repairs a limited set of formatting errors.' It is clear what the tool does, but it offers no differentiation from the many sibling x402-related tools and never contrasts its scope with alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call it when you have malformed JSON to fix. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and the phrase 'May return supplied content' adds ambiguity rather than guidance.

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

All CrossingKey MCP 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.