Preview JSON data to inspect its structure and values. Validate JSON input for debugging or analysis.
[viewer] JSON Preview
Parameters:
json (json): JSON
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "tool_json_preview"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| json | No | JSON |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not. There is no information about output format, validation, truncation, or any side effects. The behavioral nature of 'preview' remains entirely unspecified.
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?
The description is very brief with no wasted words, consisting of a title and a single parameter line. It is concise and easily scannable, though the brevity contributes to lack of substance.
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 tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain what the preview shows, what the return value is, or how this relates to other JSON utilities. The description is inadequate even for a simple tool.
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?
The schema already documents the single 'json' parameter with 100% coverage, and the description merely repeats 'json (json): JSON' without adding any new meaning. The parameter name and type are self-explanatory, so the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 is essentially a rephrasing of the tool name: 'JSON Preview' with a '[viewer]' tag. The verb 'Preview' is vague and does not specify what the operation entails or how it differs from sibling tools like tool_json_format or tool_json_parse.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it state any preconditions, exclusions, or context for the preview operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.