canonicalize_jsonConverts a JSON document to RFC 8785 canonical bytes so you can hash, sign, or compare it deterministically.
Admit one JSON document and return its RFC 8785 canonical bytes, with the jcs-admit crate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No | rfc8785 | |
| document | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no error behavior for invalid JSON, no note on output format (bytes escaped how?), and 'admit' is unexplained jargon.
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 front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is good, but 'Admit one JSON document' is awkward phrasing and 'with the jcs-admit crate' is an implementation detail that consumes words without guiding invocation.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with 2 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage or error guidance, the description leaves the unexplained 'profile' option and input expectations unaddressed for a transformation 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: it only implies the 'document' input. The 'profile' parameter (defaulting to rfc8785) is never mentioned, leaving an agent unaware that alternate profiles exist.
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?
Specific verb+resource: canonicalizing one JSON document into RFC 8785 canonical bytes, and the title reinforces the standard. It does not need sibling differentiation since no sibling tool does canonicalization, though the phrase 'with the jcs-admit crate' is noise rather than clarity.
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 statement of when to call this versus other verification tools (check_artifact_digest, verify_dsse), no prerequisites (valid JSON input?), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the purpose sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.