Run deterministic checks on wiki pages to enforce linking and severity invariants. Filter by minimum severity or scope, and paginate results to catch structural errors.
Deterministic checks. check, severity_min, limit (max 200), offset filter and page. Counts ignore them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| severity_min | No | info (default), warning or error | |
| scope_neighbors | No | Also lint 1-hop neighbors |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note — that counts ignore the filter/page parameters — but says nothing about what checks run, what severity levels mean, or what the response contains (no output schema).
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?
It is short, but telegraphic to the point of ambiguity — "Counts ignore them" leaves the referent of "them" to inference, and the opening sentence does no descriptive work. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description leaves too much unstated: what is linted, what checks are available, what the counts refer to, and how scope interacts with check. It is not sufficient for an agent to invoke this confidently.
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?
With only 33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, and it partly does by naming check, severity_min, limit (max 200), and offset. However it omits `scope` and `scope_neighbors` entirely, and the "max 200" constraint is the only real value-add; "offset filter and page" is too vague to disambiguate the two paging parameters.
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?
"Deterministic checks." describes a property of the operation rather than stating what the tool actually lints or returns. There is no clear verb+resource pairing, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling `validate`, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.
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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as `validate`. An agent gets no basis for choosing this tool over its obvious sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.