Skip to main content
Glama

NanoTools

by io.github.nanotools-x402

Api Yaml2Json

api_yaml2json

Convert YAML to JSON. ?data= [HTTP x402 price: $0.001]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / params / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -true
    • addedInput schema / properties / params / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "data": {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "null"
+      }
+    ],
+    "default": null
+  }
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful details beyond the schema: the input must be URL-encoded YAML, the call is made over HTTP, and there is a paid price of $0.001. However, it does not describe behavior for null/empty input, invalid YAML, errors, or response format.

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 extremely concise: one line containing the purpose, the request format, and the price. Every element earns its place, with the core purpose front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple single-parameter conversion tool, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required in the description. The description covers the purpose, the parameter format, and the cost. A small example or note about invalid YAML handling would make it fully complete, but it is largely sufficient.

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?

The schema gives no description coverage at all for the single 'data' parameter. The description partially compensates by specifying 'data=<yaml urlencoded>', indicating the parameter holds URL-encoded YAML. It does not explain optional/null behavior or provide an example, but for one parameter this is minimally adequate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Convert YAML to JSON.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling converters like api_csv2json and api_toml2json by the input format.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no explicit exclusions or preferred scenarios. The only usage implication is the purpose statement itself, with no additional direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All NanoTools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries: api_search and api_serp_google both return Google results, api_scrape and api_render_text both extract page text, and api_hash_multi overlaps with api_sha256 for SHA-256/SHA-512. While many tools are distinct, these overlapping pairs create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows the same api_<snake_case> pattern with no mixed conventions or casing styles. The prefix makes the server immediately recognizable and the action/resource is consistently readable across all 44 tools.

Tool Count2/5

44 tools is well over the 25+ threshold for a well-scoped set, making the server feel like a grab-bag of unrelated utilities. Even though each tool is small and individually useful, the overall surface is too large and would benefit from consolidation into focused sub-servers.

Completeness3/5

The set covers many common utility categories—encodings, conversions, text analysis, web scraping, SEO, and trends—but has notable one-way gaps: CSV/YAML/TOML all convert to JSON but not back, and markdown converts to HTML but not the reverse. The broad domain makes full completeness hard to define, so only major reverse-conversion gaps stand out.

Resources