lint_vibescapeUse this after writing a vibescape, before sharing it. It reads the code and says what would make it look wrong — most often that it never reads the music, so the picture is the same in silence as at full volume. Cheap to call and it catches most of what goes wrong.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The vibescape's GLSL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is cheap to call, catches most common failures, and typically flags the music-unaware pattern — useful for an agent deciding whether to run it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the when-to-use rule, followed by what it reports and a cost note. Nothing repeats the name or wastes a clause.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by characterizing the return as a report of what would look wrong, with a representative example. Complete enough to call correctly, though it doesn't indicate whether findings are graded or free text.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Single parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already says it is the vibescape's GLSL. The description only alludes to "the code" without adding format, size, or validity expectations beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: it reads the vibescape's code and reports what would make it look wrong. The example failure mode (never reading the music) makes the purpose concrete, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"Use this after writing a vibescape, before sharing it" gives a clear lifecycle position that implicitly sequences it against create_vibescape and share_vibescape. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.