transloadit_lint_assembly_instructionsLint Assembly Instructions without creating an Assembly. Returns structured issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| strict | No | ||
| instructions | Yes | ||
| return_fixed | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| linting_issues | Yes | ||
| normalized_instructions | No |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it does not create an Assembly, and it returns structured issues. However, it does not elaborate on side effects (if any), required permissions, or operational details like rate limits or error behavior. The non-mutating nature is partially implied but not fully explicit.
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 short sentences that immediately state the core purpose and a key differentiator. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal for a tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage. It omits usage guidelines and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct inputs. The presence of sibling tools and schema does not compensate for these gaps.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters (strict, instructions, return_fixed), and the description provides no explanation of what these parameters mean or how they affect linting. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema semantics, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set the parameters correctly.
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 lints Assembly Instructions and explicitly notes it does not create an Assembly, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like transloadit_create_assembly. The verb 'Lint' and resource 'Assembly Instructions' are specific, and the phrase 'without creating an Assembly' prevents ambiguity.
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 implies usage when validating instructions without creating an assembly, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of scenarios like 'use transloadit_create_assembly to actually create' or when not to use this linting tool. The guidance is implied rather than direct.
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 resource and action: creation, status retrieval, waiting, linting, and listing robots/templates. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tools follow the same transloadit_verb_noun pattern with clear verbs like create, get, lint, list, wait. The naming is perfectly consistent.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a media processing workflow, covering assembly creation, monitoring, validation, and resource exploration without bloat.
The core assembly lifecycle (create, status, wait) is fully covered, and linting adds pre-validation. A notable gap is the lack of a cancel operation or broader assembly listing, but these are non-essential for common workflows.