Run full validation and return a 0–100 score plus a ship gate (pass/review/fail). Minimal payload suitable for CI/CD pipelines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tools | No | ||
| skill_md | Yes | Full SKILL.md contents | |
| allowed_tools | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It states the output (score and gate) but does not explain what 'full validation' entails, whether any side effects occur, or what determines the gate. Given the read-only nature of validation, it leaves users guessing about details like error handling or limitations.
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 long and front-loaded with the core action and output. Every clause adds value—'0–100 score' and 'ship gate' specify the result, while 'Minimal payload suitable for CI/CD pipelines' provides context. No wasted words.
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?
This is a relatively complex tool (full validation, multiple parameters, ship gate logic) with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers only the high-level purpose and one usage context, leaving out parameter details, gate criteria, and validation scope, making it inadequate for a complete understanding.
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 low (33%), with only skill_md described. The description adds minimal parameter context via 'Minimal payload,' implying skill_md is the key input, but it does not explain the purpose or format of tools and allowed_tools. The description fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.
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: 'Run full validation and return a 0–100 score plus a ship gate (pass/review/fail).' This uses a specific verb ('run'), names the resource (skill validation), and uniquely identifies the tool among siblings by mentioning the score and ship gate output.
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 clear usage context: 'Minimal payload suitable for CI/CD pipelines.' This implies when to use the tool (in automated CI/CD), though it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it. The CI/CD context is a useful signal for selection.
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 are distinct, but score_skill and validate_skill both run full validation and return score/gate, creating overlap. Descriptions help by distinguishing minimal CI/CD payload from detailed structured errors, but the boundaries are not instantly clear.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: lint_frontmatter, scan_security, score_skill, validate_skill. This is highly predictable and easy to reason about.
Four tools is an appropriate size for a validation server, covering specific checks and a full validation without bloat or thinness.
The server covers frontmatter linting, security scanning, scoring, and full validation including tool collision checks. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose of validating Claude Skills.