convert_yamlConvert between data formats (YAML, JSON, XML, TOML, TOON, CSV, TSV, INI, Properties, ENV). Source format is auto-detected by default; set from to force it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Target format | |
| from | No | Source format. Omit to auto-detect from content. | |
| input | Yes | The content to convert |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior (source format auto-detection) and lists supported formats, but does not explain output structure, error cases, or limitations beyond input length (which is in the schema). This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. The long list of formats is somewhat redundant with the schema enum but provides immediate context. Overall, it is efficient without excessive fluff.
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 has no output schema or annotations, and the description does not specify return values or error behavior. It covers the core functionality and a key behavioral detail, but gaps remain regarding what the output looks like and how conversion failures are handled. This is adequate for a relatively simple conversion tool but not thorough.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the auto-detection behavior already present in the `from` parameter's schema description ('Omit to auto-detect from content'), adding no new semantic meaning. The format list also duplicates the enum values.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Convert between data formats' and enumerates the supported formats. It distinguishes from sibling tools (diagram management, validation, visualization) as a general conversion utility.
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?
The description provides clear usage context by explaining auto-detection of the source format and how to override it with the `from` parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or recommend alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action: conversion, validation, visualization, and diagram/folder CRUD operations. Even related tools like visualize_yaml and create_diagram are clearly separated by purpose (one generates source, the other saves an account resource).
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (convert_yaml, list_diagrams, create_folder). The verb clearly indicates the action and the noun the resource, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
12 tools is well-scoped for a server covering format conversion, validation, visualization, and diagram/folder management. Each tool adds a distinct capability, and the count feels neither sparse nor bloated.
The tool surface covers core workflows: conversion, validation, visualization, and full diagram CRUD with list/search/move, plus basic folder management. Minor gaps like missing folder update/delete and no diagram export are workable but not severe.