Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
labelixa-mcp

labelixa-mcp

Official
by Labelixa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

zpl_validate

Lint ZPL and return machine-readable pass/fail diagnostics with line, column, code, and severity to catch unknown commands, range errors, and layout overflow before preview; pass real label dimensions.

Instructions

Pass/fail lint for ZPL: machine-readable diagnostics with line/column, code and severity (unknown commands, parameter range errors, layout overflow). Fast; run it before zpl_preview whenever you generate or edit ZPL. For a human-readable report with a score use explain_zpl instead. Pass the real label size — checks depend on it.

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": {
      "zpl": "<zpl>"
    },
    "name": "zpl_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zplYesRaw ZPL code
dpmmNoPrinter density in dots per mm (6, 8, 12 or 24)
width_inNoLabel width in inches (at most 15)
height_inNoLabel height in inches (at most 15)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / dpmm / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / dpmm / minimum
      Added value: +-9007199254740991
  2. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.4.2
    • removedInput schema / properties / dpmm / maximum
      Removed value: -24
    • removedInput schema / properties / dpmm / minimum
      Removed value: -6
    • changedInput schema / properties / height_in / description
      Previous value: -"Label height in inches"New value: +"Label height in inches (at most 15)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / height_in / maximum
      Added value: +15
    • changedInput schema / properties / width_in / description
      Previous value: -"Label width in inches"New value: +"Label width in inches (at most 15)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / width_in / maximum
      Added value: +15
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses machine-readable diagnostics, line/column, code, severity, the error categories checked, speed, and the dependency on real label dimensions. It does not explicitly say the tool is read-only or describe failure behavior, but 'lint' and 'pass/fail' make the safety profile clear enough for a validator.

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 front-loaded and compact. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of value: purpose and outputs, usage sequencing, sibling alternative, and parameter importance.

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?

For a four-parameter validator with no output schema and no annotations, the definition supplies the key missing context: diagnostic structure, failure categories, when to call it, when not to call it, and the importance of correct label dimensions. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful rationale beyond the schema: 'Pass the real label size — checks depend on it,' explaining why the width/height/density parameters matter rather than merely restating their defaults.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Pass/fail lint for ZPL.' It also names the diagnostic categories and distinguishes the tool from zpl_preview and explain_zpl, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit sequencing guidance ('run it before zpl_preview whenever you generate or edit ZPL') and an explicit alternative ('For a human-readable report with a score use explain_zpl instead'). This is a strong routing definition.

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