Validate data using a bounded JSON Schema 2020-12 subset. FREE during validation. No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed. Supply your task in input. Existing source and input limits apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | Yes | ||
| valid | Yes | ||
| issues | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode.",
- "minimum": 0,
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / requestIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / descriptionPrevious value: -"Explicit maximum new debit; 0 means recovery only."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / maximumRemoved value: -999999999999Input schema / properties / requestId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Persist the ID returned by agent_utilities_prepare. Reuse after uncertainty."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."Input schema / properties / requestId / patternRemoved value: -"^\\d{13}_[A-Za-z0-9_-]{16,80}$"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "input",
- "requestId",
- "maxPriceMicroUsd"
-]New value: +[
+ "input"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it is free, needs no auth/credits, and notes 'source and input limits apply.' It stops short of explaining what the 'bounded subset' excludes or how limits are enforced.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded and sentences are short, but 'FREE during validation' and 'No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed' are largely redundant marketing statements that don't earn their space. The genuinely useful constraint ('Existing source and input limits apply') is buried last.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with a nested 0%-documented input and a vague 'bounded subset' claim, the definition leaves key questions unanswered: what subset of 2020-12 is supported and how schema/data are supplied.
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 0%, so the schema documents nothing, and the single top-level parameter is a nested object requiring both 'schema' and 'data'. The description only says 'Supply your task in input' and never names or explains the schema/data structure, leaving the actual input contract undocumented.
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+resource: 'Validate data using a bounded JSON Schema 2020-12 subset.' An agent knows immediately this is a schema-validation tool. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like contracts_openapi_lint or commerce_gtin_validate, leaving differentiation to inference.
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 conveys operational context ('FREE during validation', 'No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed') but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling validation/lint tools. Usage is only implied by the free/no-prep framing.
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.