Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP X-Platform

MCP X-Platform

by Atomic-Germ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

analyze_line_endings

Scan files for CRLF and LF conflicts, with optional auto-correction to enforce consistent line endings across platforms.

Instructions

Detect line ending inconsistencies (CRLF vs LF)

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_line_endings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesDirectory or file path to analyze
autoFixNoSuggest auto-fix options
preferredEndingNoPreferred line ending styleLF

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'detect'. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies files, what the output looks like, or any potential side effects. For a tool with three parameters, more behavioral context is needed.

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 description is a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. However, it is slightly under-specified for the complexity of the tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and minimal description, the tool lacks important context. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description should cover expected output or typical use cases to be complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not explain how 'autoFix' or 'preferredEnding' affect behavior.

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?

Description states 'Detect line ending inconsistencies (CRLF vs LF)', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as analyzing line endings. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'detect_encoding_issues', missing a chance to clarify its unique scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a single sentence without any context on appropriate usage scenarios or when to avoid it.

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