Validate OpenAPI 3.0 JSON structure and internal references. FREE during validation. No key, credits or wallet. Existing source and input limits apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | ||
| requestId | No | Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode. | |
| maxPriceMicroUsd | No | Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | Yes | ||
| valid | Yes | ||
| issues | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 declare readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior. The description usefully adds that the call is free and that 'existing source and input limits apply', which is real operational context, but it says nothing about failure modes or what validation output/errors look like.
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?
Four short sentences with the purpose front-loaded; nothing is padded. The two pricing sentences are slightly redundant but still compact.
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 no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, an agent still lacks guidance on alternatives and on what the referenced 'input limits' are, leaving it only minimally equipped.
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 coverage is 67% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The central nested input.document has no description anywhere, and the vague 'input limits apply' does not compensate for that gap.
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 (validate) plus the resource and scope (OpenAPI 3.0 JSON structure and internal references). This clearly separates it from contracts_openapi_diff and contracts_jsonschema_validate, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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 focuses on pricing ('FREE during validation. No key, credits or wallet') rather than when to use this tool versus contracts_jsonschema_validate or contracts_openapi_diff. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selection are provided.
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.