Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
act-testing-mcp

act-testing-mcp

by GarthDB
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

validate_workflow

Validate a workflow file's syntax and structure to ensure it is correctly formatted and follows GitHub Actions workflow standards.

Instructions

Validate a workflow file syntax and structure

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": {
      "workflow": "<workflow>"
    },
    "name": "validate_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workflowYesWorkflow file name to validate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Description only states it validates syntax, but does not disclose whether it modifies state (likely read-only), what happens on validation failure, or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no redundancy. Efficient for a simple tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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, description covers the basic purpose. However, lacking behavioral details and return value information limits completeness.

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 coverage is 100% and the description of the parameter 'workflow' is minimal ('Workflow file name to validate') but sufficient. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Validate a workflow file syntax and structure', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_workflows and run_workflow.

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. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use 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