Validate rules.yaml statically to catch unknown secret refs, shadowed/unreachable rules, inject-everywhere risks, requireConfirm notes, and union mergeStrategy issues.
Statically validate rules.yaml and return findings: unknown secret refs, unreachable rules (shadowed by earlier ones), inject-everywhere rules (high severity), requireConfirm capability notes, union mergeStrategy risk notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'statically' signals no side effects or execution, and it discloses the specific finding categories (unknown secret refs, unreachable/shadowed rules, inject-everywhere, requireConfirm notes, union mergeStrategy risk notes) plus a severity note. It stops short of stating explicitly that nothing is modified.
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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then lists findings. The parenthetical catalog is dense but every item is informative, so little is wasted, though the enumeration could be shortened with a summary phrase.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; it does so by naming the finding categories and flagging high-severity and risk-note outputs. That is sufficient for an agent to interpret a call, with only minor gaps about result format/ordering.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the schema coverage is 100% and the baseline for a no-param tool is 4.
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?
Names a specific verb (statically validate) and resource (rules.yaml) and enumerates the exact class of outputs it produces. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like rule_list, which merely enumerates rules rather than analyzing them.
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 word 'statically' implies this is a non-executing, pre-flight check, which hints at when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance about when to run it versus rule_list or what preconditions apply. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.