Labelixa

Validate TSPL

tspl_validate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lint TSPL/TSPL2 label code and return positioned findings with severity as JSON. Checks the command set Labelixa implements from the TSPL2 manual — a clean result is not a guarantee that a specific printer accepts the job. Run this before tspl_preview; if you are not sure which language the code is, call language_detect first.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tspl": "<tspl>"
    },
    "name": "tspl_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tspl`	Yes	Raw TSPL/TSPL2 code

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`summary`	Yes
`diagnostics`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 20, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / diagnostics / items / properties / mesaj

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Human-readable message in the requested language",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / diagnostics / items / properties / message

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Human-readable message in the requested language",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / ozet

Removed value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "error": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "info": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "toplam": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "warning": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "toplam",
-    "error",
-    "warning",
-    "info"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / summary

Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "info": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "warning": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "total",
+    "error",
+    "warning",
+    "info"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "diagnostics",
-  "ozet"
-]New value: +[
+  "diagnostics",
+  "summary"
+]

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: validation is limited to Labelixa's implemented command subset, and 'a clean result is not a guarantee that a specific printer accepts the job' — an important scope caveat. It stops short of elaborating finding severity levels or any limits, so not a full 5.

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 tight sentences, no filler. Front-loads what the tool does, then the scope caveat, then the workflow ordering — a sensible information hierarchy.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies the non-obvious bits an agent needs — validation scope limits and the tspl_preview/language_detect workflow — making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Raw TSPL/TSPL2 code'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description mentions 'TSPL/TSPL2 code' but adds no format, encoding, or size guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Lint TSPL/TSPL2 label code' — plus the output shape ('positioned findings with severity as JSON'). The scoping phrase 'Checks the command set Labelixa implements from the TSPL2 manual' cleanly separates it from zpl_validate/cpcl_validate/epl_validate siblings.

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?

Gives explicit ordering ('Run this before tspl_preview') and a conditional routing rule ('if you are not sure which language the code is, call language_detect first'), naming the exact sibling by name. No inference required.

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

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.