Pretty-print or shrink valid JSON.
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": "json_format"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does not meet it. It never says how the JSON is supplied, what indentation or compaction style is applied, whether the operation is pure transformation, or whether malformed input errors or is echoed back.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the operation and the data type, with no filler. It is efficient but so terse that it omits information the agent needs, which is a completeness problem rather than a verbosity one.
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 annotations, no output schema, and an empty free-form body schema, this description is the only source of guidance and it explains almost nothing about invocation. An agent still cannot tell how to hand JSON to the tool or what it gets back.
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?
The schema declares zero named parameters (a free-form body with additionalProperties: true), which per the baseline would be a 4, but the tool plainly requires an input JSON payload and neither schema nor description explains how to pass it. The description adds no meaning about input shape, so the baseline is trimmed.
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 states a specific verb pair ('pretty-print or shrink') and the resource ('valid JSON'), so the transformation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as json_repair or json_shaper, though the word 'valid' implicitly excludes repair work.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The single qualifier 'valid' weakly hints that malformed input belongs to json_repair, but the agent must infer that rather than being told.
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.