Resolve several JSON paths against one document in a single call to retrieve multiple fields at once, instead of issuing many separate queries.
Resolve several paths against one JSON document in a single call. Cheaper than issuing many json_query calls when you need multiple fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| json | Yes | The JSON document as text | |
| paths | Yes | Paths to resolve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds batch-efficiency context but says nothing about the 200-path cap, what happens on unresolvable paths, or how results are keyed to inputs. Some added value, but not rich behavioral disclosure.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the comparative guidance. Nothing redundant or padded.
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?
For a batch resolver with no output schema, the return contract matters, and the description does not explain how results map back to the input paths, their ordering, or error handling for missing paths. The core purpose and when-to-use are complete, but the output/error behavior is a real gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description conveys that paths are batch-resolved but adds no path syntax (JSONPath vs. dot notation) or ordering/alignment semantics beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Resolve several paths against one JSON document') plus the batching scope 'in a single call.' It also names the sibling json_query, so an agent can distinguish it from the single-path query tool without opening either schema.
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?
Explicitly routes usage: use this 'when you need multiple fields' and frames it as cheaper than many json_query calls. The inverse condition (use json_query for a single field) is left implicit, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.