Validate MiniZinc constraint models to catch syntax and type errors before solving. Provide the model code and optional parameters for immediate feedback.
Validate a MiniZinc model
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No | ||
| model_code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide openWorldHint=false, which does not clarify operational behavior. The description says 'Validate a MiniZinc model' but does not disclose whether it has side effects, what it returns, or whether it requires permissions. With no readOnly/destructive hints, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It omits crucial context without any structured layout to compensate. The brevity does not add value because it leaves too many unanswered questions.
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?
The tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no description of return values or error behavior. Given the tool's function (validation), an agent would need to know what is returned (e.g., a success/failure message, list of errors) and what inputs are expected. The description is grossly incomplete for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema has two parameters (model_code and params) with zero description coverage. The description does not mention either parameter, their purpose, format, or how they relate. Agents receive no help understanding what model_code should contain or what params is for, making this a severe gap.
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?
The description states a specific verb (validate) and resource (MiniZinc model), making it clear what the tool does. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from the solve-related siblings. However, it lacks specificity about what validation entails (e.g., syntax checking, type checking, constraint checking), preventing a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (list_solvers, solve_model, solve_model_by_path). There is no mention of validation being a prerequisite before solving, or any scenarios where this tool is preferred. Usage context is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.