Verifies whether an XSD schema follows SDC4 rules by checking for xsd:extension and allowing only restriction; does not validate XML instances.
Check if an XSD schema follows SDC4 principles (no xsd:extension, restriction only). Does not validate instances.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema_path | Yes | Path to the XSD schema file to check. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses the compliance rules ('no xsd:extension, restriction only') and the scope limit, but does not describe the result format, read-only behavior, or expected failure modes.
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, front-loaded with purpose, and the exclusion is included without waste. Every sentence contributes useful information.
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 simple one-parameter checker, the description adequately conveys what is checked and what is not. The main remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not explain what the check returns.
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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains schema_path. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema coverage baseline.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check if an XSD schema follows SDC4 principles') and immediately distinguishes it from instance validation with 'Does not validate instances.' This makes the tool's scope clear relative to validate_instance.
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 explicitly excludes instance validation, which implicitly points an agent to validate_instance for that case. However, it does not mention validate_and_report or give more complete when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.