Skip to main content
Glama
labelixa-mcp

labelixa-mcp

Official

tspl_validate

Validate TSPL/TSPL2 label code and receive structured JSON diagnostics with issue positions and severity, so you can fix syntax errors before printing.

Instructions

Lint/validate TSPL/TSPL2 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": {
      "tspl": "<tspl>"
    },
    "name": "tspl_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tsplYesRaw TSPL/TSPL2 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return shape (findings with positions and severity, JSON), which usefully signals a non-destructive lint operation, but it says nothing about whether any code is modified, error vs warning handling, or limits on input size.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and ending with the return contract. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 lint tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and what comes back well enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around whether it is purely read-only and how severe findings are represented.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Raw TSPL/TSPL2 code'), so the schema already does the work. The description only reinforces that the input is TSPL/TSPL2 source; it adds no format, encoding, or size guidance beyond the schema.

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) and resource (TSPL/TSPL2 label code), plus what it returns (structured diagnostics with positions and severity). The language naming implicitly separates it from epl_validate, cpcl_validate and zpl_validate, but it never explicitly says 'use the other validator for other languages'.

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 implied by the verb 'validate' — an agent can infer it is called before printing or after generating TSPL. There is no explicit when-to-use, no preconditions, and no mention of the sibling validators as alternatives for other languages.

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