Validá html o zipBase64 sin publicar, con los límites del modo anónimo. Corregí errors usando fix; revisá warnings. Las apps anónimas no tienen app.net.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | No | Contenido completo de UN archivo HTML; CSS y JS inline, sin SDK manual. | |
| zipBase64 | No | Paquete .zip completo en base64, en lugar de html. index.html en la raíz; noback.toml opcional. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false); the description adds non-obvious context: anonymous-mode limits and that anonymous apps have no app.net namespace. It does not mention rate limits or the shape of validation results, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
Three short front-loaded sentences with no filler: what it does, how to remediate (fix/warnings), and a key constraint. The remediation sentence is slightly clipped but still earns its place.
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?
Only two optional, fully-documented parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile; the description supplies the missing workflow context (don't publish, fix errors, anonymous limits). Adequate without being exhaustive about returned validation payloads.
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 100%, so both html and zipBase64 are already documented with content requirements. The description names both inputs and hints at the anonymous limits but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb (validate) and the two accepted input resources (html or zipBase64), plus the crucial scope qualifier 'sin publicar' (without publishing), which separates it from create_app/update_app. Sibling names are not used explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
Gives clear operative guidance: use fix to correct errors, review warnings, and notes the anonymous-mode limits as the operating context. It implies 'use this before publishing' but does not explicitly point to create_app/update_app as the follow-up path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.