checkyourself

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check Coverage

coverage_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a coverage object for required surfaces, valid statuses, reviewed evidence, missing-evidence notes, and not-applicable reasons, returning errors and warnings without calculating a score.

Instructions

Validate an inline CheckYourself coverage object for required surfaces, valid statuses, reviewed evidence, missing-evidence notes, and not-applicable reasons. Returns errors and warnings; it does not calculate a score. Requires no authentication. It reads local inputs only, does not make network calls, does not modify local files, and has no external rate limits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`coverage`	Yes	Coverage object produced by coverage_emit and filled with evidence statuses.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.2Sep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / coverage / description

Added value: +"Coverage object produced by coverage_emit and filled with evidence statuses."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Coverage completeness result using schema checkyourself-coverage-check/1.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral transparency beyond annotations by stating that it requires no authentication, reads local inputs only, makes no network calls, modifies no files, and has no rate limits. It also clarifies output shape as errors and warnings.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, immediately stating the core action and target. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or filler, and the key differentiator ('does not calculate a score') is placed prominently.

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 the single parameter and validation purpose, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: what input is expected, what checks are performed, and what kind of result is returned. It could be slightly more explicit about output format, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that detail.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The single parameter is described in the schema, and the tool description enriches it by explaining what aspects of the coverage object are validated. While the nested structure is not fully detailed, the description compensates by specifying the validation categories, making parameter semantics clear beyond a bare object type.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Validate') and identifies the exact resource: an inline CheckYourself coverage object. It enumerates the specific aspects checked and explicitly distinguishes from score calculation, making its role distinct from sibling tools like coverage_emit and score.

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 gives clear context on what the tool does and explicitly notes what it does not do ('does not calculate a score'). It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the behavior is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use this validation tool versus emitting or scoring coverage.

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

Deploy Server