Skip to main content
Glama

Zovo JSON to Spreadsheet

Inspect JSON structure

inspect_json
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user asks what a JSON file contains, which keys or nesting it has, how many records it holds, or why it does not parse, before converting it. Takes the same file or json_text, records_path and orient as json_to_excel and returns the record count, the key paths with their types and fill rate, nesting depth, the lists inside the records, duplicate keys, an estimate of sheets, columns and cells, and suggestions (for example a records_path). Invalid JSON is reported with its line and column. Does not make a file and does not change the JSON.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoThe JSON file to convert, e.g. orders.json (UTF-8, or UTF-16 with a byte order mark), up to 5 MB.
orientNoHow records are laid out, e.g. records. records (default): a list of objects, one row each (a single object is one row). columns: an object of equal-length lists, {"name":["Ann","Bo"],"age":[31,40]}. index: an object of objects keyed by id, {"u1":{...},"u2":{...}}; the key goes in column _key.
json_textNoInstead of a file: the JSON itself, e.g. [{"name":"Ann","age":31},{"name":"Bo","age":40}]. Use either file or json_text.
records_pathNoDotted key path to the part that holds the records, e.g. "data.items" for {"data":{"items":[...]}}. Use a number for a list item, e.g. "results.0.rows". Default: the whole document.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthYes
listsYes
notesYes
pathsYes
shapeYes
sourceYes
recordsYes
estimateYes
json_valuesYes
paths_totalYes
suggestionsYes
records_fromYes
duplicate_keysYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: invalid JSON is reported with line and column, and the tool is explicitly non-mutating ('does not change the JSON'). It does not mention performance characteristics or size limits (the 5 MB cap lives only in the schema), so it stops just short of full disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the output contract, then the exclusions — a logical order with no filler sentences. The return-value enumeration is dense but each item is distinct and useful; it could be trimmed slightly given an output schema exists.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only inspection tool with four fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, expected return payload, error reporting, and non-mutation. Nothing an agent needs to select or call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the file/json_text/records_path/orient semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description only says it takes the same parameters as json_to_excel, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the weight.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (JSON structure) and enumerates the exact questions it answers: contents, keys/nesting, record count, parse failures. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling json_to_excel by declaring it 'does not make a file', so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Opens with a concrete when-to-use trigger ('when the user asks what a JSON file contains... or why it does not parse') and positions itself as the pre-step 'before converting it'. The sibling json_to_excel is named and its parameter compatibility stated, and the closing 'does not make a file' makes the exclusion explicit.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources