ScorpTech x402 Tools

Json Patch

json_patch

Read-onlyIdempotent

Apply a JSON Patch (RFC 6902: add, remove, replace, move, copy, test) or a JSON Merge Patch (RFC 7386) to a JSON document and return the result. Atomic: any failing operation or test returns 422 with the operation index and nothing is applied. POST JSON body {document, patch}. Price: $0.002 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/json-patch

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": {
      "document": "<document>",
      "patch": "<patch>"
    },
    "name": "json_patch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No		auto
`patch`	Yes	RFC 6902 operations array, or an object = RFC 7386 merge patch
`document`	Yes	Target JSON value

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it declares atomicity ('any failing operation or test returns 422 with the operation index and nothing is applied'), the request shape, the per-call price ($0.002 USDC, x402 on Solana), and an alternate HTTPS transport. That is exactly the payment/auth, failure-mode and reversibility context the annotations don't carry.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and format, followed by atomicity, request body, and cost. Every sentence carries information, though the pricing/HTTPS sentence could be split out as secondary detail.

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?

For a 3-parameter pure function with no output schema, the description covers semantics, error behavior, and cost adequately; 'return the result' is a reasonable sketch of the return value. The one gap is the unexplained `mode` parameter and the auto-detection rule between patch formats.

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 coverage is 67%, so baseline is 3. The description clarifies that `patch` may be an RFC 6902 operations array or an object meaning an RFC 7386 merge patch, which adds real meaning, but it never explains the `mode` enum (auto/json-patch/merge-patch) that governs that choice.

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 names a precise verb and resource ('Apply a JSON Patch (RFC 6902...) or a JSON Merge Patch (RFC 7386) to a JSON document') and enumerates the supported operations, so its function is unmistakable. It never names a sibling (json_diff, json_repair, jsonpath, schema_validate), so the distinction from those tools is left to the agent.

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 implied by the format specification: this is the tool that applies an RFC 6902 operation array or an RFC 7386 merge object. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives such as json_diff (compare) or jsonpath (query), which is what a 4 or 5 would require.

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

All ScorpTech x402 Tools 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.

Resources

Need Help?