Validate document package structure, XML integrity, and formatting health for DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, and PDF files to catch corruption before editing or converting.
Validate document package structure, XML integrity, and formatting health.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | Path to document file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the scope of validation (structure, XML, formatting) and the word 'validate' implies a non-mutating operation, but it never states that nothing is modified, what happens when validation fails, or how results are surfaced.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause names a distinct validation concern.
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?
For a diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what a caller gets back (pass/fail, error list) and whether the file is touched. The scope of checks is covered, but the return/error behavior is missing.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents filePath adequately; the description adds no format, path-type, or file-type constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (validate) and resource (document package), and enumerates the three checks performed: structure, XML integrity, formatting health. This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like r7_edit or r7_create, though it does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, r7_inspect.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this over r7_inspect or r7_read, no preconditions, and no mention of when validation should be run (before/after edits, pre-conversion, etc.). The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.