Read one value from JSON by a dot path like "a.b[0].c". Returns the value found and whether it exists. Pure computation, free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| json | Yes | The JSON text to read from. | |
| path | Yes | Dot path to the value, e.g. "items[0].name" or "$.a.b". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / json / descriptionAdded value: +"The JSON text to read from."Input schema / properties / path / descriptionAdded value: +"Dot path to the value, e.g. \"items[0].name\" or \"$.a.b\"."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return contract ('value found' plus an existence flag) and noting it is pure/free computation with no external dependencies — useful since no output schema exists.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste: the operation and format are front-loaded, and the return/cost note follows. Every clause earns its place for a small utility tool.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the job of explaining the return value, which it does. For a two-parameter utility it is nearly complete; only edge behavior (invalid JSON or missing path handling) is left unstated.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including path examples. The description's inline example 'a.b[0].c' is consistent with the schema but adds little beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 and resource — 'Read one value from JSON by a dot path' — plus the return shape ('the value found and whether it exists'). It is clearly separable from siblings like bursia_json_validate, bursia_json_format, and bursia_json_diff, though it does not name them explicitly.
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 phrase 'Pure computation, free' implicitly signals a cheap, side-effect-free operation, which helps an agent choose it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against bursia_json_validate or other JSON siblings.
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.