Skip to main content
Glama

validate_strategy_full

Run every shipped validator to produce a complete strategy validation report, merging all findings into a single status and details.

Instructions

Run every shipped validator and return merged findings.

    Composes the individual MCP validators (``validate_strategy`` /
    ``validate_component_protocol_signatures`` /
    ``validate_component_integration`` / ``validate_component_logging``
    / ``validate_parameter_access``) so an agent gets a complete
    validation report from a single tool call.

    Args:
        strategy_dir: Absolute path to the strategy directory.

    Returns:
        ``{status, any_errors, total_findings, findings: [{code, ...}],
        invocations: [{validator, count}]}``. ``status`` is ``"VALID"``
        iff no findings were reported by any validator.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
strategy_dirYes
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that it runs validators and returns merged findings with output format. No side effects or authorizations mentioned, but for a validation tool, this is adequate.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns, and lists validators in a bullet-like format. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Efficient for the information conveyed.

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?

Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides detailed return format and explains the overall behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though it omits potential error conditions or performance notes.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description provides an Args section explaining the 'strategy_dir' parameter as an absolute path, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's title. With 0% schema coverage, this fully compensates.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool runs every shipped validator and returns merged findings, listing the specific validators composed. This distinguishes it from the individual validators listed as siblings.

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?

The description implies use for a complete validation report in one call, but does not explicitly state when to avoid or provide alternatives. Sibling tools are individual validators, so context is clear but not explicit.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DolphinQuant/echolon'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server