Run static code analysis on a specified target using an automatically detected command to identify errors and enforce style rules.
Run lint with a detected command
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "lint"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Run lint with a detected command' and does not clarify whether linting is read-only, whether it modifies files, what 'detected command' implies, or what happens on failure. This leaves major behavioral assumptions unstated.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, which is efficient in length but under-specified. It lacks essential context that should be included, so brevity here is closer to under-communication than effective conciseness.
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?
Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, side effects, or the meaning of 'detected command', leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool reliably.
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%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (cwd and target). There is no indication of what cwd or target represent or how they affect the linting process, forcing the agent to guess from parameter names alone.
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 clearly states it runs lint, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like format and typecheck by naming the lint operation. However, 'with a detected command' is vague and doesn't specify what detection entails, slightly reducing clarity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like format, typecheck, or run_tests. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.