validate_specValidate a draft SprintSpec without creating anything. Returns machine-readable errors (fix and retry) and warnings (evidence-based advice — take them seriously).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | Yes | The SprintSpec v1 JSON object |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it returns machine-readable errors and warnings, with a note that warnings are evidence-based advice, improving transparency beyond the annotations.
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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, and every word adds value. It clearly states what the tool does and what it returns without unnecessary fluff.
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?
With an output schema present and a single parameter thoroughly described, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and output. The notes on errors and warnings are sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.
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?
The only parameter 'spec' is fully described in the schema as 'The SprintSpec v1 JSON object' (100% coverage). The tool description doesn't add further detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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: to validate a draft SprintSpec safely without creating anything. It distinguishes from sibling creation tools by emphasizing the non-mutating nature and specifying the machine-readable output, making it unambiguous.
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 phrase 'without creating anything' implies that this should be used before any creation step, and the validation focus is clear. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action: creating, validating, revising, monitoring, attaching/reading documents, sharing, and template exploration. There is no overlap between create_calendar and revise_calendar, or between list_templates and get_template_guide.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., create_calendar, get_status, validate_spec). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for the calendar lifecycle: setup, planning, monitoring, and support. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: template discovery, spec validation, calendar creation, revision, status checks, document attachment/reading, and sharing. No obvious missing operations for the intended coaching use case.