checkyourself

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Describe CheckYourself

describe

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get CheckYourself's machine-readable manifest of CLI commands, schemas, scoring weights, score caps, coverage surfaces, exit codes, and guardrails—without scanning or modifying a project.

Instructions

Return CheckYourself's machine-readable capability manifest: CLI commands, MCP transport, schema names, scoring weights, score caps, coverage surfaces, exit codes, and public-repository scope guardrails. This is a read-only discovery tool and does not scan a project. 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
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.2Sep 7, 2026

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

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Capability manifest using schema checkyourself-capabilities/1.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those flags: 'Requires no authentication,' 'reads local inputs only, does not make network calls, does not modify local files, and has no external rate limits.' These claims are fully consistent with the annotations — no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the manifest contents are packed into a dense but relevant enumeration, and the behavioral constraints form a tight second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers everything else: purpose, scope boundaries (does not scan), and behavioral guarantees (auth, network, file modification, rate limits). Nothing an agent needs to call this safely and correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% and needs no elaboration. The baseline for a 0-param tool is 4, and the description appropriately compensates by detailing what the tool returns rather than attempting param documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Return') and a clearly scoped resource: CheckYourself's machine-readable capability manifest. It enumerates exactly what the manifest contains (CLI commands, MCP transport, schema names, scoring weights, caps, coverage surfaces, exit codes, guardrails), and explicitly distinguishes itself from scan ('does not scan a project'). This is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 usage context — a read-only discovery tool that surfaces the tool's own capabilities — and explicitly rules out one sibling ('does not scan a project'). It doesn't name alternatives for when a different tool would be preferred (e.g., schema vs. describe), but the discovery intent is clear enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.

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

Deploy Server