Schema-validate an airpipe YAML config. Send { "yaml": }. Returns { valid: true } when it passes, or { valid: false, error: } when it fails — feed the error back into your fix and call again until valid. Schema check only; does not save. Use create_config to persist a valid config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| yaml | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool only performs schema checks and does not save data, with no side effects. Describes the return format in detail, including the error message structure, and suggests a retry loop. With no annotations, this fully covers the behavioral aspects.
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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating what it does, how to call it and what to expect, and how to use the result. No unnecessary words, and critical information is front-loaded.
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?
Even without annotations or output schema, the description covers all aspects needed: purpose, input format, output behavior, loop guidance, and alternative tool. For a simple validate tool with one parameter, this is fully sufficient.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the sole parameter 'yaml' clearly: it expects the full YAML string. It also specifies the JSON format for sending the parameter, adding valuable context beyond the schema's type and minLength.
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 clearly states the tool validates an airpipe YAML config against a schema, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_config by noting it does not persist, and from validation tools like plan_config by focusing solely on schema validation.
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?
Explicitly describes the flow: send YAML, receive validation result, loop with fixes until valid. Directly names the sibling create_config as the tool to persist a valid config, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus 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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, targeting either configs or modules with specific actions (create, get, list, delete, update, deploy, etc.). The only potential overlap is between edit_config and plan_config, but they serve different stages of config management (editing vs. authoring).
The naming follows a verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., create_config, delete_config, list_configs). Minor inconsistency: 'list_configs' uses plural while most others use singular (config). Overall, the pattern is predictable and clear.
With 19 tools, the count is slightly above average but justified by the need to manage two resource types (configs and modules) with full lifecycle operations including deployment, revision handling, and validation. It is well-scoped for a configuration management server.
The tool surface is comprehensive, covering CRUD for both configs and modules, plus deployment, undeployment, toggling, revision management, editing via NL, planning, and validation. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.