IA-QA — 152 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

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

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 31, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "message": "feat!: drop node 18"
+  }
+]

Changed1 schema field changedJun 21, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "checks": {},
+  "has_body": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "is_breaking_change": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "scope": {},
+  "score": {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "subject": {},
+  "type": {},
+  "valid": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  }
+}

Changed1 schema field changedJun 10, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds value by stating it returns a compliance score, breaking change detection, and actionable suggestions, though it does not elaborate on strict-mode behavior beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The parenthetical list of types is compact and directly supports the stated spec.

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?

With full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and an output schema present, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It states the validation target, recognized types, and return contents.

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%, so the schema already documents both the message and strict parameters. The description lists recognized commit types but adds no meaning about the strict parameter or syntax beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (validate) and resource (git commit message) and names the Conventional Commits spec plus recognized types. It is clearly distinguishable 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The usage context is implied: validate a commit message against Conventional Commits. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, so guidance remains minimal.

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

All IA-QA — 152 QA & Dev Tools for AI Agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.