json_flatten
Flatten nested JSON
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | JSON object or array to flatten | |
| prefix | No |
Flatten nested JSON
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | JSON object or array to flatten | |
| prefix | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / argsRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Tool arguments",
- "properties": {
- "text": {
- "description": "Primary input text",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}Input schema / properties / dataAdded value: +{
+ "description": "JSON object or array to flatten"
+}Input schema / properties / prefixAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[]New value: +[
+ "data"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain how arrays are handled, whether keys are merged, or any side effects. The phrase gives only a superficial hint of functionality.
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 short and to the point, with no unnecessary words. However, it is too terse to be genuinely helpful; it reads more like a placeholder than a properly informative description.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the flattened output looks like, but it does not. The tool's simplicity does not excuse the omission of return format and edge case behavior.
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 'data' is described. The 'prefix' parameter lacks a description in the schema, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining its purpose or effect. This leaves a significant gap for agents trying to use the parameter correctly.
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 'Flatten nested JSON' uses a clear action verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like json_parse and extract_json. However, it does not fully specify the output format or flattening convention (e.g., dot notation), which leaves slight ambiguity.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as json_parse or json_ld. It merely states what it does without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.