Convert TOML configuration into JSON, including nested tables and arrays. Pure CPU, instant.
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": {
"toml": "<toml>"
},
"name": "toml_to_json"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| toml | Yes | TOML text to convert |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / tomlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "TOML text to convert",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "toml"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'Pure CPU, instant' usefully discloses that this is a local, side-effect-free, fast transformation. It does not say what happens with malformed TOML (error vs partial output) or what form the result takes, which matters for a converter.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by scope and a performance note. Nothing is redundant or wasted.
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?
The tool is simple (one required string param), so the bar is low, but with no output schema the description should state the return type (e.g., a JSON string) since an agent cannot infer it from structured data. It also omits failure behavior for invalid input.
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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('TOML text to convert', coverage 100%), so the schema does the work. The description's mention of nested tables and arrays slightly hints at supported input content but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('Convert') and both source and target resources ('TOML configuration into JSON'), plus scope ('including nested tables and arrays'). Among siblings like ini_to_json, xml_to_json, csv_to_json, the format name alone differentiates it, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it has TOML text and needs JSON. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-use guidance or reference to the sibling converters that handle other formats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.