SKILL.md Lint by Moltline

Diff Texts

diff_texts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Produce a unified diff between two texts. FREE.

Useful for comparing two SKILL.md versions. Typical input {"a": "", "b": ""} returns {"changed_lines": N, "diff": "--- \n+++ \n@@ ... @@\n-old line\n+new line"}; identical inputs return {"changed_lines": 0, "diff": "(identical)"}. The diff is capped at 400 lines.

Use to show exactly what changed between two versions of a text. Not for judging the risk of a code change - the codereview server's review_diff does that. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "each text must be at most 500000 characters"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`a`	Yes	The original text (left side of the diff); at most 500000 characters.
`b`	Yes	The revised text (right side of the diff); at most 500000 characters.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond by specifying that errors are never protocol errors but structured JSON, providing exact error examples, stating the diff cap (400 lines), describing the output format for identical inputs, and confirming read-only/idempotent nature. No contradictions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, then error handling, then safety note. All sentences serve a purpose. Slight verbosity in the error example and the 'FREE.' label could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no enums, output schema exists but not shown), the description fully covers input format, output format (both normal and error), limits (400 diff lines, 500000 char text), and behavioral properties (read-only, idempotent, retry safety). No significant gaps.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions already in the schema. The description adds a typical input example ({a, b}) and reaffirms the character limit in an error example, but these are supplementary rather than essential. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Produce a unified diff between two texts.' It clearly distinguishes itself from a related tool (review_diff) that judges risk of code changes. Among the listed siblings, it is the only text comparison tool, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use ('show exactly what changed between two versions of a text'), when not to use ('not for judging the risk of a code change'), and provides an explicit alternative ('the codereview server's review_diff does that'). It also gives example input and explains retry safety, leaving no ambiguity.

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

All SKILL.md Lint by Moltline tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool addresses a distinct concern: cron expressions, text diffs, JSON validation, SKILL.md linting, zip packaging, and regex testing. There is no overlap in purpose or output, so an agent can unambiguously select the right tool for a given task.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (cron_explain, diff_texts, json_validate, lint_skill, packaging_check, regex_test). The pattern is uniform and predictable, making the API easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a focused server. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count feels neither bloated nor sparse for a linting and validation toolkit.

Completeness4/5

The core domain of validating SKILL.md files is well covered by lint_skill and packaging_check, and the generic utilities (cron, diff, JSON, regex) support auxiliary validation needs. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to fetch or write files directly, but the read-only linting workflow is complete.

Resources

Need Help?