Skip to main content
Glama

JSON to Types

by com.gumballtools

Server Details

Convert JSON samples into TypeScript interfaces and Zod schemas, with inference caveats.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Available Tools

1 tool
json_to_typesJSON to TypeScript and ZodA
Read-only
Inspect

Convert a JSON sample into TypeScript interfaces and a matching Zod schema, and report where a single sample cannot establish the real type.

Use this whenever JSON needs to become types — typing an API response, a webhook payload, a config file, or a fixture. Prefer it over writing the types directly, because three mistakes are easy to make and invisible once made:

  1. ARRAYS. Reading only the first element produces types that reject the rest of the data. This merges every element into a union.

  2. NULL VS ABSENT. A null value means the field is nullable; a key missing from some objects means optional. Different types, routinely conflated.

  3. EMPTY CONTAINERS. Nothing can be inferred from [] or {}. This emits unknown and says so instead of inventing a plausible shape.

It is also far cheaper in output tokens than generating types inline for a large payload, and the result is deterministic.

Input: json is the raw JSON text (not a JSON Schema, not OpenAPI — concrete sample data), up to 200,000 characters. rootName optionally names the top-level interface and defaults to "Root".

Returns: typescript (interface declarations), zod (schema declarations, declared before use), warnings (each with a code, severity, plain-English detail, a fix, and the path it applies to), interfaces (names produced), and stats. Read the warnings before trusting the output — they are the part a model generating types inline cannot give you.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jsonYesRaw JSON text — concrete sample data, not a JSON Schema and not an OpenAPI document. Up to 200000 characters. Include several array elements if the shapes vary; only the variety matters, not the volume.
rootNameNoName for the top-level interface. Must be a valid TypeScript identifier. Defaults to "Root".

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing that results are deterministic, that warnings must be read before trusting output, and exactly how edge cases are handled: array elements are merged into unions, null vs absent is distinguished, and empty containers yield unknown. No contradiction with read-only intent exists.

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?

The description is long but front-loaded and every major section earns its place: purpose, when-to-use, pitfalls, input, and returns. The numbered list of mistakes is valuable, and the returns section compensates for the absent output schema. Slight redundancy exists between the prose Input/Returns section and the already-complete schema parameter descriptions.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does: typescript, zod, warnings with code/severity/detail/fix/path, interfaces, and stats. It also states the size limit, the default for rootName, and the warning that output should be reviewed before use. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke this tool correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the json and rootName semantics with a bit more framing, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It adds no new parameter-level detail such as formatting, validation, or edge behavior beyond the schema's text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Convert a JSON sample into TypeScript interfaces and a matching Zod schema.' It also states the concrete outcome (typescript, zod, warnings) and gives examples of applicable inputs, making the tool's function unmistakable even without siblings to differentiate it.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use this whenever JSON needs to become types' and lists concrete scenarios. It also tells the agent to prefer this over writing types directly, explaining why, and draws the boundary on inputs: raw JSON sample data, not JSON Schema or OpenAPI. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedjson_to_types

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Login with GitHub to comment

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • apitype

    jayesh-bansal
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables AI assistants to generate TypeScript types, Zod schemas, TypeBox, and JSON Schema from any API endpoint or JSON.
    15
    MIT

  • schema-tools

    rog0x
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables generating JSON Schema from sample data, generating TypeScript types, validating data against schemas, creating mock data from schemas, and comparing schemas for differences.
    5
    49
    MIT

  • swagger-ts-mcp

    lhbDesign
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Generates TypeScript types for API functions from Swagger/OpenAPI documents, enabling AI IDEs to automatically create type definitions.
    10
    3
    MIT
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of selecting the wrong tool for the task. The tool's purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'json_to_types' clearly follows a snake_case pattern that matches the server's purpose. With only one tool, there are no naming convention conflicts to evaluate.

Tool Count5/5

The server has a very narrow, specific purpose: converting JSON samples to TypeScript and Zod. One focused tool is exactly the right scope, and adding more tools would likely dilute the utility.

Completeness5/5

The tool covers the full conversion workflow—input JSON, optional root name, output TypeScript and Zod schemas, plus warnings and statistics. It even addresses edge cases like arrays, null vs absent, and empty containers, so no obvious gaps exist for its stated domain.

Resources