Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
GongRzhe

JSON MCP Server

by GongRzhe
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

JSON MCP Server (@gongrzhe/server-json-mcp@1.0.3)

A JSON Model Context Protocol (MCP) server implementation for querying and manipulating JSON data. This server enables LLMs to interact with JSON data through a set of standardized tools.

Installation & Usage

# Using npx with specific version (recommended)
npx @gongrzhe/server-json-mcp@1.0.3

# Install specific version globally
npm install -g @gongrzhe/server-json-mcp@1.0.3

# Run after global installation
server-json-mcp

Related MCP server: MCP Database Server

Components

Tools

  • query

    • Query JSON data using JSONPath syntax with extended operations

    • Input:

      • url (string): URL of the JSON data source

      • jsonPath (string): JSONPath expression with optional operations

  • filter

    • Filter JSON data using conditions

    • Input:

      • url (string): URL of the JSON data source

      • jsonPath (string): Base JSONPath expression

      • condition (string): Filter condition

Supported Operations

Array Operations

  • Slicing: $[0:5], $[-3:], $[1:4]

  • Sorting: $.sort(price), $.sort(-price)

  • Distinct: $.distinct()

  • Transformations:

    • Map: $.map(fieldName)

    • Flatten: $.flatten()

    • Union: $.union([1,2,3])

    • Intersection: $.intersection([1,2,3])

String Operations

  • Case: $.toLowerCase(), $.toUpperCase()

  • Tests: $.startsWith('test'), $.endsWith('test')

  • Search: $.contains('test'), $.matches('pattern')

Numeric Operations

  • Math: $.math(+10), $.pow2()

  • Rounding: $.round(), $.floor(), $.ceil()

  • Functions: $.abs(), $.sqrt()

Date Operations

  • Format: $.format('YYYY-MM-DD')

  • Check: $.isToday()

  • Modify: $.add(1, 'days')

Aggregation Operations

  • Group: $.groupBy(category)

  • Stats: $.sum(price), $.avg(price), $.min(price), $.max(price)

Configuration

Usage with Claude Desktop

To use this server with the Claude Desktop app, add the following configuration to your claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "json": {
    "command": "npx",
    "args": [
      "@gongrzhe/server-json-mcp@1.0.3"
    ]
  }
}

Alternatively, you can use the node command directly if you have the package installed:

{
  "json": {
    "command": "node",
    "args": [
      "path/to/build/index.js"
    ]
  }
}

Development

Building from Source

  1. Clone the repository

  2. Install dependencies:

    npm install

  3. Build the project:

    npm run build

Notes

  1. All JSONPath expressions start with $ representing the root object

  2. Array indices are zero-based

  3. String values in operations should be wrapped in quotes

  4. Date operations support 'days', 'months', and 'years' units

  5. Numeric operations support basic arithmetic operators (+, -, *, /)

License

MIT

Available Tools

2 tools
filterC

Filter JSON data using conditions

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
conditionYesFilter condition (e.g. @.price < 10)
jsonPathYesBase JSONPath expression
urlYesURL of the JSON data source

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Filter' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't clarify whether this tool fetches data from a URL, processes it locally, or has any side effects like caching. It also omits details about error handling, performance, or output format, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it lacks front-loading of critical information—it doesn't immediately clarify the tool's scope or differentiate it from siblings, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a tool that filters JSON data from a URL with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the output format, error conditions, or how the filtering integrates with the data source. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing usage examples. However, since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Filter JSON data using conditions' states the tool's purpose with a clear verb ('Filter') and resource ('JSON data'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from its sibling 'query'. It doesn't specify what kind of filtering or what the output looks like, leaving the agent uncertain about the exact operation.

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 its sibling 'query', nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternative scenarios. Without any context about when this tool is appropriate, the agent must guess based on the tool name alone.

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

queryC

Query JSON data using JSONPath syntax

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jsonPathYesJSONPath expression (e.g. $.store.book[*].author)
urlYesURL of the JSON data source

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool queries JSON data but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, performance implications, rate limits, or what happens if the URL is invalid or JSONPath is malformed. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Query JSON data using JSONPath syntax.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of querying external JSON data, the description is incomplete. No annotations exist, and there's no output schema, so the agent lacks information on return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints. The description doesn't compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('jsonPath' and 'url'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only reiterates the use of JSONPath without providing additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Query JSON data using JSONPath syntax.' It specifies the verb ('query'), resource ('JSON data'), and method ('JSONPath syntax'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'filter,' which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a score of 5.

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. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'filter' or any other context for usage, such as prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred. This leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 2 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedfilter
    • First observedquery
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tools 'filter' and 'query' both operate on JSON data, which creates some overlap in purpose, as filtering can be seen as a subset of querying. However, the descriptions differentiate them: 'filter' uses conditions (likely simpler, boolean-based operations), while 'query' uses JSONPath syntax (a more expressive, path-based language). This distinction helps reduce confusion, but an agent might still struggle to choose between them for certain tasks.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent pattern: they are single, lowercase verbs ('filter' and 'query') that clearly indicate actions. There are no deviations in style (e.g., no mixing with snake_case or camelCase), making the naming predictable and easy to understand across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, this server feels thin for a JSON processing domain, which typically involves operations like parsing, transforming, validating, or merging JSON. The limited scope may force agents to work around gaps, as basic tasks like reading or writing JSON files are not covered, making it under-scoped for a general-purpose JSON server.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for JSON processing. While 'filter' and 'query' handle retrieval and selection, there are no tools for creating, updating, validating, or manipulating JSON structures (e.g., add, remove, merge). This leaves significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform common JSON operations beyond simple queries.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • OpenAPI MCP Server

    rahgadda
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol Server that enables LLMs to interact with and execute REST API calls through natural language prompts, supporting GET/PUT/POST/PATCH operations on configured APIs.
    6
    Apache 2.0

  • MCP Database Server

    manpreet2000
    A
    license
    D
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that enables LLMs to interact with databases (currently MongoDB) through natural language, supporting operations like querying, inserting, deleting documents, and running aggregation pipelines.
    5
    14
    MIT

  • Ollama_MCP_Guidance

    ShadovvSinger
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that provides standardized interfaces for interacting with Ollama API, offering JSON responses, error handling, and intelligent guidance for LLM-based API calls.
    9
    MIT

  • JSON Query MCP

    mgraczyk
    F
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server for querying large JSON files using JSONPath expressions, enabling LLMs to efficiently search and extract information from large JSON data.
    3
    11
    -

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/GongRzhe/JSON-MCP-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server