Run a type check on a target using the command detected from your project.
Run typecheck 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": "typecheck"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'detected command', which hints at automatic command detection but does not explain output, side effects, errors, or prerequisites. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured safety metadata.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. However, 'detected command' is slightly vague and could have been clarified without sacrificing 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool is under-specified. It does not explain what 'typecheck' entails, how the command is detected, or how cwd and target influence execution, leaving significant gaps for a tool with two parameters.
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 input schema lists cwd and target with no descriptions, and the description does not mention either parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning to the parameters, making it impossible for the agent to infer their purpose.
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 the action (run) and resource (typecheck), distinguishing it from sibling tools like lint or build. The phrase 'with a detected command' adds a bit of ambiguity but still conveys a specific purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or contextual hints are provided, leaving the agent without direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.