Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Rosetta MCP Server

Rosetta MCP Server

by Arielbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

validate_xml

Read-only

Validates RosettaScripts XML syntax and optionally checks element names against the Rosetta XSD schema to catch errors before running scripts.

Instructions

Validate a RosettaScripts XML protocol. Checks XML syntax and optionally validates element names against the Rosetta XSD schema. Use before run_rosetta_scripts to catch errors early.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "xml_content": "<xml_content>"
    },
    "name": "validate_xml"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xml_contentYesXML content to validate
validate_against_schemaNoIf true, also check element names against the cached Rosetta XSD schema (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses validation behavior (syntax check, optional XSD schema validation). Aligns with readOnlyHint annotation; no contradiction. Provides specific actions beyond generic 'validate'.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. First sentence defines purpose, second gives usage instruction. Efficient and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Covers purpose, usage, and parameter hints well. However, lacks description of return value or error behavior, which is important for a validation tool. Since no output schema exists, description should address this.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names. Description adds meaningful context: 'cached Rosetta XSD schema' and default for validate_against_schema. Enhances schema information.

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?

Clear verb+resource: validates RosettaScripts XML. Differentiates from siblings by specifying purpose as pre-run validation, and explicitly suggests use before run_rosetta_scripts.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('before run_rosetta_scripts'), which helps distinguish from execution tools. Does not cover when not to use or alternative validation methods, but context is sufficient.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools