Validate a StackForms (.forms.yml) file using the Cycloid CLI. This tool can validate StackForms configuration and provide detailed feedback for fixing issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forms_content | Yes | The content of the .forms.yml file to validate |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / forms_content / descriptionAdded value: +"The content of the .forms.yml file to validate"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object",
+ "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not state that validation is non-mutating, whether the CLI must be reachable or authenticated, whether it only validates or can modify the file, or what failure looks like. Only the mention of using the Cycloid CLI adds any behavioral context.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and target. The second sentence partially restates the first ("validate StackForms configuration") but adds the feedback-for-fixing angle, so little is wasted.
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 explained, and the single parameter is fully documented. However, for a CLI-backed validation tool with zero annotations, the agent is left unsure about side effects, environment/auth requirements, and whether fixes are applied automatically.
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?
Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains forms_content. The description adds only the .forms.yml format hint, which is marginal but consistent; baseline 4 applies for a one-parameter tool.
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) and resource (a StackForms .forms.yml file) and names the underlying mechanism (Cycloid CLI). It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling list/get tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
"Provide detailed feedback for fixing issues" implies the intended use case (check a forms file before applying it), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
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.