Skip to main content
Glama

post_data_convert

Deterministic data-format conversion — the shape work an LLM cannot do reliably token-by-token. POST {data, from, to}: JSON, NDJSON, CSV, TSV, or a SQL INSERT dump in; any of the same out. Handles RFC 4180 quoting (commas, quotes, newlines in values), flattens nested objects to dot-notation columns, unions ragged records into a stable column set, and parses SQL string literals with '' and ' escapes. No AI, no network — same input, same bytes, every time. ($0.005 per call, paid via x402)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNocsv (default), tsv, json, ndjson, or sql
dataYesThe dataset as a string (up to ~4MB)
fromNojson (default), ndjson, csv, tsv, or sql
tableNoTable name when to=sql (default 'data')
headerNoCSV/TSV input has a header row (default true)
flattenNoFlatten nested objects to dot-notation columns (default true)
delimiterNoOverride the delimiter for csv/tsv
infer_typesNoConvert numeric/boolean/null strings on input (default true); leading zeros stay strings

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
fromNo
rowsNo
bytesNo
outputNo
columnsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description goes beyond annotations by detailing deterministic behavior, handling of RFC 4180 quoting, nested object flattening, ragged record union, SQL string literal parsing, and pricing ($0.005 per call). Annotations only include readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc., which are consistent.

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?

Description is concise, informative, and well-structured. Two sentences cover purpose, behavior, and pricing without redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, 1 required, output schema present), the description adequately covers tool scope, behavior, edge cases, and pricing. No gaps are evident.

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% with parameter descriptions present; description does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it's a deterministic data-format conversion tool, lists supported formats (JSON, NDJSON, CSV, TSV, SQL), and distinguishes it from sibling tools (none of which are data conversion).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'the shape work an LLM cannot do reliably token-by-token' indicates when to use this tool (for reliable conversion). It also clarifies no AI or network involved. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but siblings are distinct.

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.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the SEO-related tools (head_check, full_audit, site_audit, etc.) overlap in scope, potentially causing confusion despite clear descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a get_/post_/delete_ verb pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., get_seo_head_check, post_store_collection), with no mixing of naming conventions.

Tool Count2/5

With 46 tools covering a wide breadth of domains (SEO, accessibility, music, crypto, linting, etc.), the count is excessive for a single server, feeling unfocused and heavy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most core operations for each sub-domain, but minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for datastore, limited music operations).