Turn key-value lines, CSV, or a Markdown table into clean 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_shaper"
}
}| 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. It does not state delimiter/header assumptions for CSV, how key-value pairs map to nested keys, what happens on malformed input, or whether the operation is stateless and deterministic.
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; the verb and the accepted input formats arrive first and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.
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?
The input schema is an unconstrained POST body (additionalProperties: true) with no named fields, and no output schema and no annotations exist. In that situation the description should explain how to shape the request body and what the response looks like, and it does neither.
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 defines zero named parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of the three accepted input shapes is the only guidance about what the free-form POST body should contain, which is modest added value.
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 transformation ("Turn ... into clean JSON") and enumerates accepted inputs: key-value lines, CSV, and Markdown tables. That distinguishes it from siblings like json_format and json_repair, which imply already-JSON input, though the description never names those alternatives 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?
Usage is implied by the input-format list -- an agent can infer "use this when your data is CSV/key-value/Markdown" -- but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to json_format or json_repair for already-valid JSON.
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.