Skip to main content
Glama

Labelixa

by com.labelixa
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Validate EPL

epl_validate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lint EPL/EPL2 label code and return positioned findings with severity as JSON. Checks the command set Labelixa implements from the EPL2 manual — a clean result is not a guarantee that a specific printer accepts the job. Run this before epl_preview; if you are not sure which language the code is, call language_detect first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eplYesRaw EPL/EPL2 code

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ozetYes
diagnosticsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a valuable limitation: validation is scoped to Labelixa's EPL2 command set and a clean result is not a guarantee of printer acceptance. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose, limitation, and usage order are each stated once and front-loaded. The most actionable guidance appears before the caveat and disambiguation.

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 one-parameter lint tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, output shape, limitations, and relationship to epl_preview and language_detect. 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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single `epl` parameter, so the schema already explains the input. The description references EPL/EPL2 code but adds no new detail about format, size limits, or edge cases, which is acceptable for a single fully-documented parameter.

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 names a specific verb ('Lint'), a resource ('EPL/EPL2 label code'), and the concrete output ('positioned findings with severity as JSON'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling validators/previewers 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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance: run before epl_preview, and call language_detect first if the language is uncertain. This tells an agent when to use this tool versus closely related siblings without needing further inference.

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

All Labelixa toolsInspect
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.

Resources