Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
labelixa-mcp

labelixa-mcp

Official
by Labelixa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

epl_validate

Validate EPL/EPL2 label code and get structured JSON diagnostics with error positions and severity to catch label syntax issues before printing.

Instructions

Lint/validate EPL/EPL2 label code and return the structured diagnostics report (findings with positions and severity) as JSON.

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": {
      "epl": "<epl>"
    },
    "name": "epl_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eplYesRaw EPL/EPL2 code

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by disclosing the return shape (findings with positions and severity, as JSON) and implying a non-mutating check, but it says nothing about what happens with clean code, whether diagnostics above a severity are surfaced as errors, or any size limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the verb, resource, and return contract all land in one pass.

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?

For a one-parameter, non-mutating lint tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately. The only real gap is edge-case behavior for valid input and error signaling, which is minor at this complexity.

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?

One required parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds only a mild clarification that both EPL and EPL2 are accepted; no format examples or constraints beyond the schema's minLength 1.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (lint/validate) plus the resource (EPL/EPL2 label code) and the result shape (structured diagnostics report). The language naming implicitly separates it from zpl_validate, tspl_validate and cpcl_validate, but no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the EPL/EPL2 scope in the description; there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'use zpl_validate instead' routing. An agent must infer the choice from the language name alone.

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