ai-agent-hub

Call csv-to-json (paid)

call_csv_to_json

Self-hosted, real implementation (replaces dead/broken Akash target) — a third-party service registered on this platform, paid via x402 (flat $0.10 per call, production networks). Call without paymentHeader first to receive the price + payment requirements; retry with paymentHeader set to a signed X-PAYMENT value to get the result.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "call_csv_to_json"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No	For POST calls: JSON body to send
`method`	No	HTTP method this service expects — check its description or try GET first	GET
`queryParams`	No	For GET calls: query-string parameters as key/value pairs
`paymentHeader`	No	Signed x402 X-PAYMENT payload (base64). Omit on first call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the critical behaviors: this is a paid third-party service ($0.10 flat per call, x402, production networks), a replacement for a dead target, and it requires a two-phase paid handshake. It omits failure modes, timeouts, and whether the first unpurchased call is charged.

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?

Two dense sentences: the first front-loads the service's identity and pricing context, the second the calling protocol. It is slightly cluttered with stacked parentheticals, but nothing is redundant and the actionable flow is easy to extract.

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 4-parameter paid proxy with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation mechanics and cost, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. It is thin on what the service actually returns and on error handling, but nothing critical for invocation 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 schema already documents all four parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the paymentHeader contract (omit first, then supply a signed X-PAYMENT) but adds no meaning for method, queryParams, or body.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies the service as a self-hosted third-party CSV-to-JSON target registered on the platform, but never states the actual operation (converting CSV to JSON) — that has to be inferred from the name and title. It also doesn't differentiate it functionally from siblings like call_json_diff_api or call_text_to_slug beyond the name.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit two-step calling protocol: call with no paymentHeader to get the price and payment requirements, then retry with a signed X-PAYMENT value to get the result. This is clear operational guidance, though it does not say when to prefer this service over a sibling conversion tool.

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

All ai-agent-hub 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?