Validates .dgx files for well-formedness and Threat Modelling Tool loadability, reporting per-diagram findings.
Check that a .dgx file is well formed and that the Threat Modelling Tool itself can load it, reporting what it found in each diagram.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool reports what it found in each diagram, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool modifies the file, what happens on failure, or whether it requires specific permissions. The 'check' verb implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Check that a .dgx file is well formed') and adds a secondary detail about reporting. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it reports. However, it lacks details about the return format or how the results are presented, which could be important for an agent deciding whether to call this tool. The absence of annotations increases the burden, but the simplicity of the tool keeps the gap moderate.
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?
The schema has only one parameter, 'path', with no description. The description mentions '.dgx file' but does not explicitly state that 'path' should point to a .dgx file. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it partially does by implying the file type, but it could be more explicit about the parameter's meaning and format.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: validating a .dgx file for well-formedness and loadability by the Threat Modelling Tool, and reporting findings per diagram. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('.dgx file'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like coras_read_diagram or coras_edit_diagram by focusing on validation rather than reading or editing.
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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to validate a .dgx file before loading or editing it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like coras_read_diagram for inspecting content. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.