codapult_guard_checkCheck project architecture rules against workspace and return structured new violations, so coding agents can detect architectural drift and enforce approved JavaScript/TypeScript design constraints.
Check project architecture rules and return structured new violations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | Project path or workspace root. | |
| changed_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it. It never says whether the check is read-only or records state, what 'new' means (relative to a baseline? prior runs?), what permissions/paths are needed, or how results are shaped beyond the phrase 'structured new violations'.
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. It is efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than crispness.
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 annotations, no output schema, an undocumented parameter, and a dense sibling family, the definition leaves an agent guessing about prerequisites, side effects, and the semantics of 'new'. It is not sufficient for correct invocation in this tool family.
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 only 50%: 'root' is documented but 'changed_only' has no description, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining that it scopes the scan to changed files. It adds no meaning beyond the schema text.
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 ('Check') and resource ('project architecture rules') plus a distinctive output nuance ('structured new violations'), so an agent knows this is a rules-evaluation tool rather than a governance/waiver management tool. It does not explicitly name how it differs from close siblings like codapult_guard_verify or codapult_guard_analyze, which keeps it below 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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus the 13 sibling guard tools (verify, analyze, audit, review, impact), several of which sound near-identical. No prerequisites (e.g., whether codapult_guard_init must run first) or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.