Validate TRMNL project layout structure, framework settings, Liquid syntax, and adaptive UI rules to catch configuration and markup issues before deployment; not a visual or device test.
Check layout structure, framework settings, Liquid syntax and selected adaptive UI rules. This is not a visual or device test.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds valuable scope detail by listing what is checked and explicitly clarifying that visual/device testing is out of scope, which prevents misuse. It stops short of explaining result format or failure behavior, so it is not a 5.
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 sentences with no filler: the first front-loads what is checked, and the second immediately rules out a likely misinterpretation. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Annotations cover the safety profile well, but the description does not explain the required id parameter or what a validation result looks like. Since no output schema exists, the description should say more about the return value (e.g., pass/fail, error list) to be fully complete.
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 has one required parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions 'id' or clarifies whether it refers to a project ID, layout ID, or another identifier. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates the resources being validated: layout structure, framework settings, Liquid syntax, and adaptive UI rules. It also rules out visual/device testing, which helps distinguish it from preview/device-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from trmnl_markup_validate or other validation tools.
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?
It provides a useful negative guideline—'This is not a visual or device test'—but gives no positive when-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives. The agent can infer this is a static validation step, but the description does not say when to choose it over trmnl_markup_validate or before preview/deploy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.