Alcoven

Check a widget, view or schedule before writing it

check_widget

Read-only

For keeping a number as a widget on the project's home, making a dashboard or a page of numbers (a view), setting something on a timetable, like sending a view every Monday (a schedule), or setting the week's focus and the project's phases (the focus file): checks the file before it is written. Reads a draft widget, view or schedule file the way Alcoven will, and writes nothing: each line it can't read, with the line's number and what is allowed, or, when every line reads, what it would show now (a widget or view) or when it runs next and what it does (a schedule). Given only a path ending .view.md or .schedule.md, it returns that file's format and the guide's address. Given a path ending .focus.md with no text, it gives a focus file's format and the guide's address; with the text, each line Alcoven can't read, or the plan read back (the current phase and how many of its objectives are met, the week's number with its pace, and how many of its things are tasks). With no text, it returns the widget file's format.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Where the file goes, like reports/client.view.md or ops/monday.schedule.md. A path ending .view.md or .schedule.md reads the text as one; with no text, the answer is its format. A path ending .focus.md reads the text as the project's focus file; with no text, the answer is its format.
`text`	No	The whole file: a widget, a view or a schedule (with its path).
`project`	No	The project's slug, from open_project, like acme. Not needed when a § address names the project, or when the person is on one project.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`text`	Yes
`guide`	No
`notes`	No
`problems`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 23, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / path / description

Previous value: -"Where the file goes, like reports/client.view.md or ops/monday.schedule.md. A path ending .view.md or .schedule.md reads the text as one; with no text, the answer is its format."New value: +"Where the file goes, like reports/client.view.md or ops/monday.schedule.md. A path ending .view.md or .schedule.md reads the text as one; with no text, the answer is its format. A path ending .focus.md reads the text as the project's focus file; with no text, the answer is its format."

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / path

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Where the file goes, like reports/client.view.md or ops/monday.schedule.md. A path ending .view.md or .schedule.md reads the text as one; with no text, the answer is its format.",
+  "maxLength": 1024,
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / text / description

Previous value: -"The whole widget file."New value: +"The whole file: a widget, a view or a schedule (with its path)."

removedInput schema / properties / text / minLength
```
Removed value: -1
```
removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "text"
-]
```

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, and the description reinforces them: 'writes nothing' and 'checks ... before it is written'. It adds genuine behavioral context — per-line errors with line numbers, and a preview of what a widget/view would show or when a schedule next runs. The return-value detail is partially redundant with the output schema, keeping it below 5.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The opening sentence is a sprawling run-on that front-loads product jargon ('a page of numbers (a view)') rather than the tool's action, and the trailing sentences re-explain the same .view.md/.schedule.md/.focus.md branching three times, largely duplicating the path schema. The reader must work to extract the one core instruction.

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?

With an output schema, full annotations and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers all four input modes and what each returns, which is enough for correct invocation. The only gap is that the draft-file contents domain (what a valid widget/view line looks like) is left entirely to the external guide it points at.

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%, including the suffix-based mode switching in the path parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description restates the extension behavior without adding format rules, and never mentions the 'project' parameter at all. Baseline 3 applies 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?

After a long preamble about widgets, views, schedules and the focus file, the description lands on a specific verb and resource: 'checks the file before it is written. Reads a draft widget, view or schedule file the way Alcoven will, and writes nothing.' An agent can tell this is a validation/dry-run tool, distinct from the write-oriented siblings like add_document or edit_document. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls short 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The trigger 'checks the file before it is written' implies pre-write validation, and the per-suffix rules (.view.md, .schedule.md, .focus.md, default widget) tell the agent which mode it will get. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. use read or part when you want the stored file rather than a draft), so usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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

All Alcoven tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?