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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (valid/error), behavior (schema check only, no save), and suggests an iterative workflow for fixing errors.
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 two sentences, front-loading purpose and providing all necessary info without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.
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 validation tool with one parameter and a clear return format, the description is complete. It explains input, output, and workflow, making it fully actionable.
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 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying the expected format: 'Send { "yaml": <the full YAML string> }'. This goes beyond the schema's minLength constraint.
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's purpose: schema-validate an airpipe YAML config. It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes from sibling create_config by noting it does not save.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: validate and iterate on errors until valid, and use create_config to persist. It tells when to use the tool and when not to.
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 resource (config or module) and action (create, read, update, delete, deploy, etc.), with clear descriptions that avoid overlap. No two tools appear to perform the same function.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_config, list_modules), with occasional specificity like deploy_config_revision. No mixing of conventions or unexpected naming.
At 19 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a configuration management server covering CRUD, deployment, revision history, validation, and planning. Each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of configurations and modules (create, read, update, delete, deploy, undeploy, toggle, validate, plan, edit). Minor gaps like bulk operations or search are absent but not critical for the domain.