Pretty-print JSON with configurable indentation (2 spaces, 4 spaces, or tab).
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": {
"input": "<input>"
},
"name": "json_format"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Raw JSON text to format. | |
| indent | No | 2 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the indentation options but says nothing about behavior on malformed JSON input, whether input is validated, or that the operation is a side-effect-free transformation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause earns its place by stating the operation and the one configurable option.
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?
For a simple two-parameter transformation with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers purpose and the indentation choice adequately. Only the error behavior on invalid JSON is left unstated, which is a minor gap.
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 50% (only `input` is documented). The description compensates for the undocumented `indent` parameter by explaining that the values mean 2 spaces, 4 spaces, or a tab character, adding real meaning beyond the bare enum in 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 (pretty-print) and resource (JSON) plus the configurable indentation, so the agent knows this reformats rather than validates or minifies. It does not explicitly name siblings like json_minify/json_validate, but the verb alone cleanly separates it.
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 implied by the verb: use this to reformat raw JSON text. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or naming of the adjacent tools (json_minify, json_validate, json_diff) that an agent might confuse it with.
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.