Validates MCP server slug, version, and tool names against naming conventions, flagging snake_case violations and returning a pass status with issues.
Lint the slug, version, and tool names.
Args: server_json: server.json contents. tool_names: Optional list of tool names to validate against snake_case convention.
Returns: {pass, issues}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_names | No | ||
| server_json | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape ({pass, issues}), which is useful, but it does not state that the operation is non-destructive, whether it mutates or reads server_json, or any failure behavior. A lint-style tool is implicitly read-only, but this is inferred rather than stated.
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?
Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by compact Args/Returns blocks lifted from the docstring. Every element is short, though the Args entries are close to repeating the schema titles.
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?
It supplies param meaning and the return shape ({pass, issues}) despite having no output schema, which covers the essentials. With a free-form nested server_json object and no annotations, it still leaves the expected input structure and the nature/magnitude of reported issues undescribed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: tool_names is clarified as an optional list validated against snake_case, and server_json as server.json contents. However, 'server.json contents' is near-tautological and gives no hint about the expected slug/version structure inside the nested object.
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?
States a specific verb (lint) and the exact resources checked: slug, version, and tool names. That is clearly distinguishable from sibling checks like check_required_fields or audit_server_json, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied: validate a server.json against naming conventions. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing away from siblings such as check_required_fields, which an agent equally plausibly might pick for server.json validation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.