Skip to main content
Glama
WSattazahn

caveat-lang

by WSattazahn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

caveat_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Load and check a single-file Caveat program after editing to catch authoring diagnostics like repeated rules or a missing reopening path, and report codes, locations, messages, and suggestions.

Instructions

Load a single-file program and report authoring diagnostics, such as repeated rules or a missing reopening path. Use after editing source; choose caveat_validate for a declaration summary and caveat_test for behavior assertions. A clean check does not prove behavior; bundles are unsupported. report (caveat-check/0.1) contains loads, strict, diagnostics and suppressed diagnostics, with code, location, message and suggestion, or a load error. exitCode: 0 completed without a strict failure; 1 strict with unsuppressed diagnostics; 2 load failure or bundle. Returns the same JSON in structuredContent and text: {schema:"caveat-authoring/0.1",operation,sourceSha256,runtime,exitCode,report}. Read exitCode even when isError is false. Bridge failures instead set isError:true with {schema:"caveat-authoring-error/0.1",error:{kind,message}}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesComplete inline Caveat program text, available as the virtual file inline.cav. No file path or URL lookup. At most 1 MiB of UTF-8 source; each call uses a fresh runtime.
strictNoOptional, defaults to false. When true, any unsuppressed diagnostic makes exitCode 1 instead of 0; suppressed diagnostics do not count. Does not change program behavior. Load failures and unsupported bundles remain exitCode 2.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / source / description
      Previous value: -"Inline Caveat source; no file or URL lookup."New value: +"Complete inline Caveat program text, available as the virtual file inline.cav. No file path or URL lookup. At most 1 MiB of UTF-8 source; each call uses a fresh runtime."
    • addedInput schema / properties / strict / description
      Added value: +"Optional, defaults to false. When true, any unsuppressed diagnostic makes exitCode 1 instead of 0; suppressed diagnostics do not count. Does not change program behavior. Load failures and unsupported bundles remain exitCode 2."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish a safe read-only, idempotent profile, yet the description goes further: it defines exitCode 0/1/2 semantics, explains the strict-vs-suppressed interaction, warns to read exitCode even when isError is false, and describes the bridge-failure shapes. This is rich behavioral context beyond structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then routing, then behavior and return contract; nearly every clause carries distinct information. It is dense and long, but there is little true filler, so it earns most of its length rather than wasting it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by documenting the report shape, exitCode values, the structuredContent/text payload, and the error variant. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret its result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both source and strict are already documented in the schema, including strict's default and exitCode effect. The description's 'read exitCode even when isError is false' adds tool-level context but doesn't meaningfully extend the parameter definitions, so the baseline 3 holds.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Load a single-file program and report authoring diagnostics') and gives concrete examples of diagnostics. It explicitly distinguishes itself from caveat_validate (declaration summary) and caveat_test (behavior assertions), so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use it ('after editing source') and names the two alternative sibling tools with the conditions that select them. It also sets a limitation ('bundles are unsupported') and a caveat ('a clean check does not prove behavior'), leaving little to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools