IA-QA — 130+ QA & Dev Tools for AI Agents

lint_commit_message

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a git commit message against the Conventional Commits spec (feat, fix, docs, style, refactor, test, chore, ci, perf, build). Returns compliance score, breaking change detection, and actionable suggestions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`strict`	No	Enforce strict rules: max 72-char subject, imperative mood check (default: false)
`message`	Yes	Git commit message to validate

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No
`scope`	No
`score`	No
`valid`	No
`checks`	No
`subject`	No
`has_body`	No
`is_breaking_change`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds useful outcome details, such as returning a compliance score, breaking change detection, and actionable suggestions, which goes beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists output details. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple validation tool with two well-documented parameters, a full output schema, and strong safety annotations. The description covers the purpose, spec, and expected output, making it complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'message' and 'strict' clearly documented. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it also does not need to; the schema fully explains the parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Validate a git commit message against the Conventional Commits spec,' and lists the allowed commit types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like validate_email or json_schema_validate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies the tool is used when you need to validate a git commit message against Conventional Commits. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous and sufficient for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All IA-QA — 130+ QA & Dev Tools for AI Agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap significantly: compare_models/llm_fit_finder/model_info/list_llm_models all compare models; similarity_score/embedding_similarity/run_semantic_tests all measure text similarity; detect_secrets/secret_scan/analyze_diff_bugs/pr_gatekeeper all scan for secrets. Descriptions attempt to differentiate, but the boundaries between many tools are unclear, making selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (validate_email, generate_uuid, parse_csv), making the set mostly predictable. A few notable deviations exist (pr_gatekeeper, llm_fit_finder, cot_analyzer, jira_to_test_suite, needle_haystack_generate) but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Tool Count1/5

With 149 tools, this set is far beyond the 50+ threshold for an extreme mismatch. Even as a general-purpose QA & Dev toolkit, the sheer number overwhelms and exceeds any reasonable scope, making discovery and selection impractical.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers an impressively broad range: text processing, LLM evaluation, security auditing, web checks, MCP validation, Jira/Confluence integration, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as missing delete/update for webhooks and Confluence pages, and no create/update for Jira issues, but these are workable around.

Resources

Need Help?