Skip to main content
Glama
Asced1807

forja

by Asced1807
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

check

Verify a project without running it: scan syntax, types, and lint across all languages. Use it to catch errors before execution and confirm changes pass validation.

Instructions

Comprueba el proyecto sin ejecutarlo: sintaxis, tipos y lint de TODOS sus lenguajes.

Args:
    path: ruta absoluta al proyecto o a cualquier archivo dentro de él.
    timeout: segundos máximos por herramienta.
    full: true para recibir todos los campos, incluido el detalle de lo ya visto.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fullNo
pathYes
timeoutNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is executed (implying a safe, non-mutating check), the coverage dimensions (syntax/types/lint, all languages), and per-tool timeout behavior. It does not explicitly state permissions or side-effect safety, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core behavior is front-loaded in a single tight sentence; the Args block is docstring-style but each line is informative. Minimal waste, though the Args formatting is slightly verbose for a description field.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, parameters, and non-execution behavior. The 'detalle de lo ya visto' notion is a bit opaque, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all three params: path accepts an absolute project path or any file within it, timeout is max seconds per tool, and full returns all fields including already-seen detail. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Comprueba) and resource (el proyecto) with concrete scope: syntax, types, and lint across all languages. The phrase 'sin ejecutarlo' implicitly separates it from test/run siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 contrast with execution ('sin ejecutarlo') implies when to use it versus test, but no alternative tools are named and no when-not guidance is given. Usage must be inferred from the sibling list.

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