Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tool-mcp-server

tool-mcp-server

by maple-awa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

tool_yaml_to_json

Transform YAML data into JSON format. Input a YAML string and receive structured JSON, facilitating data exchange between systems.

Instructions

[data] YAML to JSON

Parameters:

  • yaml (string): YAML

Outputs:

  • json (json): JSON

Tool call template

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_yaml_to_json"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jsonNoJSON
yamlNoYAML

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the input and output format but does not mention error handling for invalid YAML, formatting of the output JSON, or whether this is a pure read-only transformation. The basic conversion behavior is clear, but edge-case behavior is not disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and structured with labeled parameters and outputs. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant text. The leading '[data]' is slightly unexplained but does not detract significantly.

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?

For a simple conversion tool, the description gives the essential input and output, but it lacks examples, clarifications about the expected YAML format, and behavior on malformed input. Without an output schema, a bit more context about the returned JSON structure would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'yaml' and 'json' parameters. The description merely repeats 'yaml (string): YAML' and 'json (json): JSON' without adding any additional semantics, constraints, or examples.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'YAML to JSON' with a specific conversion direction and identifies the output. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tool_json_to_yaml and tool_json_format. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as tool_json_to_yaml or tool_json_parse. The usage context is only implied by the name and description, with no explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings.

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