aegisub-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ass_validate

Validate an entire ASS subtitle document for structural errors and warnings, including duplicate styles, missing styles, bad timestamps, and timing issues, returning a report with counts and issues.

Instructions

Structural validation of the whole document.

Args: doc_id: document id or None for the current document.

Returns: {"doc_id", "ok", "counts", "issues"}. ok is True when no issue has severity error. Every issue is {"code", "severity", "kind", "index", "message"}; kind says what index refers to:

``script_info``  index into the ``[Script Info]`` entries
``style``        index into ``doc.styles()``
``line``         0-based line index in ``doc.events()`` order
``section``      index into ``doc.sections``
``document``     ``index`` is ``None``

Codes: ``duplicate_style_name`` (error), ``duplicate_script_info_key``
(warning), ``missing_script_type`` (warning), ``missing_style`` (error),
``end_before_start`` (error), ``zero_duration`` (warning),
``invalid_timestamp`` (error), ``comments_only_style`` (warning),
``unknown_section`` (warning), ``unknown_record`` (warning),
``malformed_line`` (warning), ``malformed_raw_line`` (warning) and
``field_count_mismatch`` (error).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doc_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses substantial behavioral detail: the meaning of 'ok', the structure of issues, the mapping of 'kind' to index types, and a comprehensive list of validation codes with their severities. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or whether any side effects occur, but for a validation tool this is a strong effort.

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?

The description is long but well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections, then a detailed list of codes and kind mappings. Every section earns its place by providing semantic value, though it is more verbose than strictly necessary.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values in depth, but it does so helpfully. It also fully covers the single parameter's meaning. The only notable gap is the absence of usage guidelines relative to sibling tools like ass_qc.

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

Parameters5/5

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. It does so by explaining that 'doc_id' is a document id or 'None' for the current document, adding clear semantic meaning beyond the bare anyOf string/null schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Structural validation of the whole document.' This clearly states what the tool does and is distinguishable from most siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with potentially overlapping tools like ass_qc, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description states the tool's purpose but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as ass_qc or ass_check_overlaps. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical contexts for invoking validation.

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

Deploy Server