Everyday DevTools MCP

json_format

Validate and pretty-print JSON strings to catch syntax errors and produce readable, indented output for debugging or sharing.

Instructions

Validate and pretty-print a JSON string.

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": "json_format"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`indent`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

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 basic operation but does not disclose what happens with invalid JSON, whether output is returned as a string, or how indentation affects the result. For a validation-and-formatting utility, these omissions leave meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity contributes to missing guidance and parameter details.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description should carry more context. It does not explain error handling for invalid JSON, the return format, or the role of the indent parameter, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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 for the undocumented parameters. It implies that the text parameter is a JSON string and that the operation pretty-prints, but it never mentions the indent parameter or its effect on output formatting.

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 uses a specific verb pair, 'validate' and 'pretty-print', with a clear resource: a JSON string. It is understandable without opening the schema, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling json_minify tool, which handles the opposite formatting operation.

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?

The description implies the tool is for formatting JSON but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as json_minify. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for choosing this tool over a sibling.

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

Deploy Server