Reviews pasted FiveM Lua or NUI source code by side with pattern-based advisory checks to flag potential issues without executing code or proving security.
Pattern-based advisory review of pasted Lua/NUI source. Does not execute code or prove security. Do not send credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| side | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the review does not execute code, does not prove security, and credentials should not be sent. The advisory-output caveat is exactly the kind of expectation-setting that annotations cannot convey.
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?
Three short sentences with zero waste; the core purpose is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct constraint (non-execution, non-guarantee, credential hygiene).
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 no output schema, the description should signal what a review returns (findings list, severity, matched patterns) and clarify the `side` parameter. The safety caveats are covered, but the agent still lacks enough to predict the response shape or fill `side` confidently.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions either parameter. "Pasted Lua/NUI source" loosely maps to `code`, yet the `side` enum (client/server/nui) is entirely unexplained — the agent cannot tell whether it selects the review perspective, the running context, or something else.
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?
States a specific verb (review) and resource (pasted Lua/NUI source) with a qualifier that frames the output as pattern-based and advisory. It is distinguishable from siblings like validate_fxmanifest and inspect_fivem_resource, though it does not name them explicitly.
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?
"Pasted source" and "advisory review" imply the usage context (code you already have, not a live resource), and the disclaimer sets expectations. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives are given, so the agent must infer routing versus validate_fxmanifest or inspect_fivem_resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.