Validate the current project spec with the generator's validator before building to catch spec issues early and avoid wasted build time.
Run the generator's validator against the project's current spec. Cheap; do this before spending a build.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | Project id. Optional, falls back to the CLI's selected project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses cost ('cheap') and sequencing relative to builds, but not whether validation is read-only, whether it can fail with errors, or what form the result takes.
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, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the cost/sequencing rationale immediately following.
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 zero-required-parameter tool this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the agent cannot know whether the validator returns a pass/fail, a list of issues, or a raw error — a gap the description does not fill.
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 coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter (project_id) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning for the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Run the generator's validator against the project's current spec.' An agent can tell this apart from build-oriented siblings like octri_trigger_build or octri_preview_sdk, though it never explicitly names a sibling.
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?
'Cheap; do this before spending a build' gives a clear trigger condition and positions the tool in a pre-build workflow. No explicit when-not or alternative named, but the guidance is actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.