Repair malformed JSON by fixing invalid syntax so parsers can read it, with optional validation against a target schema.
[Backward-Compatible Alias] Use 'heal_json_schema' instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw_text | Yes | ||
| target_schema | No | ||
| payment_signature | No | ||
| target_schema_json | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and it says essentially nothing about behavior. It does not explain whether calls still succeed, whether they forward to heal_json_schema, what payment_signature implies (apparent x402 payment/auth), or side effects. Beyond labeling itself deprecated, no behavioral context is given.
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 short sentence with the deprecation label front-loaded and the redirect immediately after. Nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a deprecated alias the description omits whether invocation still works and whether behavior mirrors heal_json_schema, which is the main thing an agent needs to decide between the two.
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% across 4 parameters, and the description adds no parameter information whatsoever. The presence of 'payment_signature' hints at a payment/auth requirement that is never mentioned, leaving the caller to guess.
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 does not state what the tool does functionally (repair malformed JSON); it only identifies itself as a '[Backward-Compatible Alias]'. The name and the pointer to heal_json_schema let an agent infer the purpose, and it does distinguish itself from that sibling, but the actual operation is never described.
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?
It gives an explicit routing instruction: 'Use heal_json_schema instead.' That tells the agent which alternative to pick. It stops short of stating when, if ever, this alias itself should be invoked (e.g., legacy clients), so it is not fully complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.