Detects and runs a project's lint command, returning stdout, stderr, and exit code so you can verify code quality and diagnose lint failures.
Detect and run the project's lint command, returning stdout/stderr/exit_code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes | ||
| timeout_ms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses return values (stdout/stderr/exit_code) and mentions detection, but it omits side effects, timeout behavior, permissions, and what happens if no lint command is found.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and return values.
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 command-execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete. It mentions return values but leaves timeout semantics, failure cases, and parameter meanings undocumented.
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% for both parameters. The phrase "project's lint command" vaguely implies repo_path, but timeout_ms is completely unexplained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: detect and run the project's lint command. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like run_command, run_tests, run_typecheck, or run_build.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_command or project_health. It only implies usage for linting, without when-not conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.