Validate an oh-my-posh configuration against the schema. Supports JSON, YAML, and TOML formats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | The format of the configuration (auto-detect if not specified) | auto |
| content | Yes | The configuration content as a string (JSON, YAML, or TOML) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'validate' and 'against the schema' suggest a read-only check, but the description does not disclose output format, error semantics, or explicitly confirm that no modifications are made. It adds context about supported formats but lacks deeper behavioral detail.
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?
The description is a single 12-word sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists supported formats. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description provides enough information to invoke the tool correctly. However, since there is no output schema, a brief note about the validation result or behavior on invalid configs would make it more complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'content' and 'format' already described in the schema. The description's mention of supported formats simply mirrors the schema's enum, adding little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Validate an oh-my-posh configuration against the schema.' It clearly states the tool's core function and lists supported formats (JSON, YAML, TOML), which also differentiates it from the sibling validate_segment tool.
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?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever a full oh-my-posh configuration needs validation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or refer to the sibling validate_segment, so it misses the opportunity to provide exclusionary guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct validation scope: one for full configurations, one for individual segment snippets. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the two.
Both tools follow a consistent validate_ noun pattern with snake_case, making the naming predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the count is slightly below the typical well-scoped range, but it is appropriate for the focused purpose of validating oh-my-posh configurations and segments.
The tool set covers the core validation needs: full configuration files and individual segment snippets. There are no obvious gaps for the stated domain.
