Labelixa

Validate CPCL

cpcl_validate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lint CPCL label code and return positioned findings with severity as JSON. Checks the command set Labelixa implements from the CPCL manual — a clean result is not a guarantee that a specific printer accepts the job. Run this before cpcl_preview; if you are not sure which language the code is, call language_detect first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cpcl`	Yes	Raw CPCL code

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ozet`	Yes
`diagnostics`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "diagnostics": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "code": {
+            "description": "Stable diagnostic code, e.g. ZPL0002",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "col": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "end_col": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "end_line": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "line": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "mesaj": {
+            "description": "Human-readable message in the requested language",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "message_key": {
+            "description": "i18n key for the message",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "severity": {
+            "enum": [
+              "error",
+              "warning",
+              "info"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "code",
+          "severity",
+          "line",
+          "col"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "ozet": {
+      "properties": {
+        "error": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "info": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "toplam": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "warning": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "toplam",
+        "error",
+        "warning",
+        "info"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "diagnostics",
+    "ozet"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: it clarifies the validation is limited to Labelixa's implemented command set and warns that 'a clean result is not a guarantee that a specific printer accepts the job'. No contradiction exists.

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 compact at three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then adds a crucial caveat, then gives usage ordering. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important selection information is near the beginning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter lint tool, the description covers the purpose, scope, a critical limitation, and when to use it. An output schema exists for the returned JSON, eliminating the need to describe return structure, and the annotations already carry the safety profile. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single `cpcl` parameter as 'Raw CPCL code'. The description's phrase 'CPCL label code' adds no new meaning, and no format, length, or encoding constraints are mentioned. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Lint'), resource ('CPCL label code'), and output ('positioned findings with severity as JSON'). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by scoping to 'the command set Labelixa implements from the CPCL manual', making it clearly separate from cpcl_preview and validators for other languages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Run this before cpcl_preview' establishes ordering, and 'if you are not sure which language the code is, call language_detect first' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke the tool.

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

All Labelixa tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.