Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Janus MCP

Janus MCP

by DeanWard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

set_output_format

Change a session's output format to json, compact, structured, or markdown so responses match your integration or display needs.

Instructions

Change the output format for a session

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": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>",
      "outputFormat": "<outputFormat>"
    },
    "name": "set_output_format"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionIdYesThe session ID
outputFormatYesNew output format: 'json' (full JSON), 'compact' (minimal text), 'structured' (readable text), 'markdown' (formatted docs)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the operation changes a session-level setting but omits details such as persistence, reversibility, permissions required, or whether the change affects only subsequent calls. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple setter, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for helpful context.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is low-complexity with a complete parameter schema, but the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should clarify behavioral traits like persistence or side effects. It is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, including full enumeration details for outputFormat. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('output format') scoped to a session, which is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_documentation or initialize_session, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only restates the action without contextual usage cues.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools