Format JSON text with configurable indentation or minify it to reduce size, making structured data easier to read or compact for storage and transfer.
Prettify or minify JSON text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| json | Yes | JSON text to format. | |
| indent | No | Indent spaces (default 2). | |
| minify | No | Minify instead of prettify (default false). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only restates the two modes already implied by the parameter names. It says nothing about error handling for malformed JSON, whether input is returned unchanged on failure, or what the returned string looks like, all of which matter for a transformation utility.
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 that front-loads the two modes with no filler. It is efficient, though it may be too terse to be genuinely informative given the existence of a near-duplicate sibling.
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?
The tool is simple, has only three fully documented parameters, and no output schema, so not much is required. Still, with no annotations, the description could reasonably say what happens with invalid JSON and how indent/minify interact, which it omits entirely.
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 100%, so all three parameters (json, indent, minify) are already documented in the schema, including the defaults. The description adds only the high-level 'prettify or minify' framing and no syntax or interaction detail (e.g. what indent does when minify is true), so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a concrete verb pair (prettify/minify) and the resource (JSON text), so the operation is immediately clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling json_format, which appears to cover nearly identical ground, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiating bar for a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over json_format, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternative tools. The only usage signal is the implicit 'JSON text in, formatted text out', which is not enough for a routing decision between two near-identical siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.