mcp-lab-agent

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Executar linter

run_linter

Run ESLint, Prettier, or the project's configured linter. Optionally fix issues automatically or target a specific path.

Instructions

Roda ESLint, Prettier ou linter configurado no projeto.

Tool call template

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": "run_linter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fix`	No	Auto-fix (--fix). Default: false.
`path`	No	Caminho específico (ex: src/). Default: todo o projeto.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`output`	No
`status`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`exitCode`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.3.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that running with fix=true may modify files, nor any other behavioral traits such as performance or dependency requirements. Only the basic action is stated.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary verbosity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, parameters are well-documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, reducing the need for return-value explanations. However, the description lacks behavioral context such as potential file modifications and provides no usage scenarios, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (fix and path), giving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool runs ESLint, Prettier, or the project's configured linter. This specific verb+resource makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_tests.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended usage is implied from the name and description: use when you need to lint code. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it.

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