Validate JSON data against a JSON Schema using Ajv. Works with local files or inline strings, ensuring schema compliance without external network calls.
Validate JSON data against a JSON Schema using Ajv. Local files/strings only. Does not fetch URLs or contact external services.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jsonc | No | ||
| dataText | No | ||
| schemaText | No | ||
| dataFilePath | No | ||
| schemaFilePath | 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 the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool operates only on local files/strings and does not contact external services. This is valuable context for security and reliability expectations, though it does not describe output format or error behavior.
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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the important local-only constraint is stated clearly and immediately.
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?
With 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. It fails to explain how to provide data/schema, the meaning of jsonc, or whether inputs are mutually exclusive, leaving critical ambiguities.
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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain parameters like jsonc, dataText, schemaText, dataFilePath, or schemaFilePath, nor any required combinations. The parameter names are somewhat self-evident, but the description adds no mapping or usage detail.
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 tool's function: 'Validate JSON data against a JSON Schema using Ajv.' This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_json and validate_jsonc, which appear to validate JSON syntax rather than against a schema.
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 clear context: 'Local files/strings only. Does not fetch URLs or contact external services.' This gives an explicit when-not boundary, though it does not name alternative tools or provide direct comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.