Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vs-token-safer

vs-token-safer

by JSungMin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

diagnostics

Check code for compiler and linter errors and warnings, returning a compact sorted file:line:col severity list. Set scope to directory to scan the project; empty output means clean.

Instructions

Compiler/linter errors + warnings (semantic) → capped file:line:col severity [code]: message, sorted error→hint with a count — the compact stand-in for raw build output. Empty = clean. Default = one path; scope="directory" scans the project.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "diagnostics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoFile to check (or, with scope=directory, the subtree to scan; default = root).
scopeNo`file` (default) | `directory` (scan project).
backendNo
maxResultsNo
projectPathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.37.3
    • removedInput schema / properties / backend / description
      Removed value: -"Backend override; auto-detected."
    • removedInput schema / properties / maxResults / description
      Removed value: -"Max diagnostics returned (default 60)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"Source file to check (or, with scope=directory, the subdirectory to scan; default = project root)."New value: +"File to check (or, with scope=directory, the subtree to scan; default = root)."
    • removedInput schema / properties / projectPath / description
      Removed value: -"Project root (cwd)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Previous value: -"`file` (default) checks one `path`; `directory` scans the project for errors/warnings across files."New value: +"`file` (default) | `directory` (scan project)."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.29.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / backend / description
      Previous value: -"clangd|roslyn|typescript|pyright (auto)."New value: +"Backend override; auto-detected."
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectPath / description
      Previous value: -"Project root (default cwd)."New value: +"Project root (cwd)."
  3. Addedv1.0.3

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output format (capped, sorted, with count) and that empty output means clean. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 concise, conveying purpose, format, and defaults in a single sentence. It could be structured more clearly (e.g., separate sentences for parameters), but overall it is not verbose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return values (format, sorted, count). It covers main parameters but leaves some (backend, maxResults) undocumented. Siblings are many, but the description sufficiently distinguishes the tool's purpose.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 40% (2 of 5 parameters described). The description adds context for path and scope (defaults and interaction). But projectPath, backend, and maxResults are unexplained in both schema and description, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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 the tool returns compiler/linter diagnostics in a specific format (file:line:col severity [code]: message), sorted by severity with a count. It distinguishes from sibling tools like symbol or search tools by specifying its role as a 'compact stand-in for raw build output'.

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 when to use (as a compact stand-in for raw build output) and explains default behavior and scope options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings.

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