Tomorrow Lives Engines

Check a form

form_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks a form document against the sculptor's strict reader. Costs no units.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`form`	Yes	The form document, written inline as JSON.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ms`	No	Milliseconds the run took.
`job`	Yes	The job id; the job tool reads it.
`verb`	No	The tool that made it.
`files`	No	Files made, each with a name, type, size and a signed URL.
`units`	No	Units this call cost.
`result`	No	The engine's own answer, a JSON document.
`status`	No	queued when the job runs in the background.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / form / description

Added value: +"The form document, written inline as JSON."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "files": {
+      "description": "Files made, each with a name, type, size and a signed URL.",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "job": {
+      "description": "The job id; the job tool reads it.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ms": {
+      "description": "Milliseconds the run took.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "The engine's own answer, a JSON document."
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "queued when the job runs in the background.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "units": {
+      "description": "Units this call cost.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "verb": {
+      "description": "The tool that made it.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "job"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a behavioral detail not present in the annotations – that the operation 'Costs no units' – plus the fact that validation runs against a 'strict reader'. It doesn't say what happens on failure, but an output schema exists to carry results.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no redundant or filler text. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a one-parameter validator with a present output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essentials (what is checked, what it is checked against, and that it is free). The only gap is that 'the sculptor's strict reader' is left undefined, so the agent does not know what rules are enforced.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'form' object including that it is written inline as JSON. The description adds no format, size, or content constraints beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Checks a form document') and names the validation target ('the sculptor's strict reader'), which distinguishes it from the sibling form_build/form_apply mutation tools. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the other *_check siblings (art_check, video_check, etc.) or with form_apply, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Usage is implied by the check/apply naming pattern, and 'Costs no units' is a useful hint that it is a free operation. But the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of what the strict reader rejects, and no pointer to form_apply for the mutation path.

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

All Tomorrow Lives Engines 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.

Resources

Need Help?