Validate TSPL/TSPL2 label code and return a structured diagnostics report with positions and severity as JSON, helping identify errors in thermal label scripts.
Lint/validate TSPL/TSPL2 label code and return the structured diagnostics report (findings with positions and severity) as JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tspl | Yes | Raw TSPL/TSPL2 code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the tool returns a structured diagnostics report as JSON, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., read-only, no modification) or error handling behavior, leaving some uncertainty for a mutation-averse agent.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately states the output format. No filler, no redundancy. It earns its place efficiently.
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 simple single-parameter validator, the description covers the input (TSPL/TSPL2 code) and the output (structured JSON report with positions and severity). It does not describe edge cases or failure modes, but those are minor for a lint tool. The description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The schema covers the single parameter fully (100% coverage) with a description ('Raw TSPL/TSPL2 code') that matches the tool description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the language type. Baseline of 3 applies because schema already documents the parameter adequately.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Lint/validate') and resource ('TSPL/TSPL2 label code'), and specifies the output as a structured JSON diagnostics report. It differentiates from sibling validators (zpl_validate, epl_validate, cpcl_validate) by naming the target language explicitly, so an agent can select it without confusion.
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 implies it is for TSPL/TSPL2 code but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use zpl_validate for ZPL'). There are no exclusions or conditions, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.