TextToolkit

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

format_json

Format and beautify messy JSON with configurable indentation. Clean up compressed or poorly formatted JSON blocks for readability.

Instructions

Format and beautify JSON

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "format_json"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	The text to format
`indent_size`	No	Number of spaces for indentation (1-8)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description lacks any behavioral details. It does not disclose what happens with invalid input, whether it preserves comments or key order, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description should cover these aspects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Although very short, the description is under-specified. It sacrifices necessary information for brevity, leading to incompleteness. A good description would be more informative while still concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address important aspects like error handling, validation behavior, or what 'beautify' entails. More context is needed.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: formatting and beautifying JSON. It uses a specific verb and resource and is distinguishable from sibling tools like format_html or format_sql.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of contexts where it is appropriate or inappropriate, nor any reference to other tools for similar tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.