Paid $0.01 Base USDC. Extract JSON from unstructured text, prose, notes, or logs into a caller-supplied JSON Schema using only explicit source evidence. No URL fetch, private Mika state, or retained request body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| schema | Yes | ||
| instruction | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a cost model ('Paid $0.01 Base USDC'), input constraints (no URL fetch, no private Mika state, no retained request body), and an evidence-only extraction rule. It still omits error or failure behavior and any deterministic guarantees.
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 three tight sentences that front-load the cost, then the core operation, then the constraints. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
No annotations and no output schema exist, and parameter descriptions are absent. The description covers purpose, cost, and the no-external-fetch/evidence-only constraints, but it leaves the instruction parameter undocumented and does not describe error handling or edge cases for an extraction tool with a caller-supplied nested schema.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'unstructured text, prose, notes, or logs' to the text parameter and 'caller-supplied JSON Schema' to the schema parameter, but it entirely ignores the optional instruction parameter and does not explain schema format beyond the term 'JSON Schema'.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Extract JSON from unstructured text, prose, notes, or logs into a caller-supplied JSON Schema.' It clearly states the transformation and output target. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but those siblings are unrelated, so the purpose remains clear.
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 naming source types and the caller-supplied schema, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no comparison to alternatives, and no prerequisites. The 'No URL fetch, private Mika state, or retained request body' line excludes input types but does not route the agent to another tool.
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.