Validate plugin configuration drafts against a revision before saving, ensuring changes are correct without persisting them.
Evaluate a typed draft without saving TRMNL POST /api/plugin_settings/{plugin_setting_id}/configuration/evaluation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| profile | No | Configured profile name; defaults to default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'without saving' reinforces that consistency. It adds no detail on what evaluation returns (errors vs. warnings vs. diff) or how revision conflicts are surfaced, which is the behavior an agent most needs to know.
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?
Two short lines with the key qualifier ('without saving') front-loaded and no filler. The trailing endpoint string is marginally useful for API cross-reference but adds little for tool selection.
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?
This is a nested-payload dry-run tool with no output schema, so the description must explain what evaluation produces and how it differs from a save. Given 3 parameters and complex draft operations, the two-line description leaves the agent guessing about results and revision handling.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33%: only 'profile' is documented, while 'revision' and the nested 'draft' array of op/path/value entries are bare. The description says nothing about optimistic-concurrency revision semantics or what set/unset/clear_secret do, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('evaluate a typed draft') plus the underlying endpoint, and the phrase 'without saving' implicitly separates it from trmnl_update_plugin_configuration. It never names the sibling explicitly, so the differentiation requires a small inference.
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?
'Without saving' implies a dry-run/validation use case before committing via update_plugin_configuration, but no when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or alternative is stated outright. Usage must be inferred from a single phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.