Validate a HeyClaude content submission draft locally without creating GitHub issues, pull requests, or publishing content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Submission field values to validate against the HeyClaude content schema. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| policy | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the tool as safe and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral clarity by stating it does not create issues, PRs, or publish, which aligns with and slightly extends the annotation information. No contradictions.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key constraints. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or wasted space.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and constraints. However, it does not explain what the validation return value looks like (e.g., success/failure, error messages), though the output schema may cover this.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification about the 'fields' parameter beyond what the schema already provides. No extra guidance on parameter usage or constraints.
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 verb 'validate' and the resource 'HeyClaude content submission draft', and explicitly lists what it does NOT do (create GitHub issues, pull requests, or publish content). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submission.prepare or submission.review.
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 includes the phrase 'locally without creating GitHub issues, pull requests, or publishing content', which effectively guides when to use this tool (for local validation before submission) and implies when not to use it (when creation or publishing is needed). However, it does not explicitly state alternative tools for those cases.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, especially with clear prefixes. However, there is some overlap between entry.safety and entry.trust (both deal with safety/trust metadata), and between registry.recommend and registry.plan (both provide recommendations). The descriptions help differentiate but some ambiguity remains.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a domain prefix (entry, install, registry, submission) followed by a descriptive noun, all lowercase with underscores. This makes the surface predictable and easy to navigate.
27 tools is slightly high but reasonable given the broad scope of the HeyClaude registry, which includes browsing, recommending, installing guidance, and submission preparation. The count is appropriate for the server's purpose.
The tool surface is comprehensive, covering search, detail, comparison, safety/trust analysis, install setup for multiple clients, recommendation, and a full submission pipeline (validation, review, schema, etc.). There are no obvious gaps for the intended read-only registry directory functionality.
