Classify build or test output by sending logs and context to TypeSafe, yielding structured Jev verdicts, severities, and probabilities for agent triage.
Classify supplied build or test output; the log and context are sent to TypeSafe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output | Yes | ||
| command | No | ||
| context | No | ||
| language | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait the schema cannot express — that the log and context are transmitted to TypeSafe (an external data-sharing/privacy fact). However, it omits classification categories, failure behavior, and any limits.
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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic ('TypeSafe' is undefined), which keeps it just short of a 5.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with four parameters at 0% schema coverage, an external data-transfer side effect, and zero annotations, the description leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently or understand what it may send off-box.
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 0% for all four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains what 'command' or 'language' should contain, nor the expected form of 'output' or 'context', leaving half the inputs semantically opaque.
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+resource: 'Classify supplied build or test output'. An agent can tell this is a classification tool rather than a code/diff reviewer, but the description never explicitly contrasts it with siblings like jev_evaluate or jev_triage_bug_report, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named despite five closely related siblings (jev_review_code, jev_review_diff, jev_evaluate, jev_check_hypothesis, jev_triage_bug_report). The agent gets no routing signal beyond guessing from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.