Scans Markdown text or files to flag filler transitions, mechanical parallelism, clichéd essay phrasing, and empty upbeat endings, returning violating line numbers with fix suggestions.
静态扫描 Markdown 文本或文件，机械拦截假人过渡词（总的来说/毋庸置疑）、机械排比（不仅...更是...）、高中作文腔（犹如一幅画卷/宛如晨曦）与空洞正能量结尾。返回违规行号与修改建议。零外部依赖。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | 要检查的本地 Markdown 文件绝对路径（text 与 path 二选一） | |
| text | No | 要检查的 Markdown 文本内容（text 与 path 二选一） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that scanning is static, returns violation line numbers and suggestions, and has zero external dependencies, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, file-access requirements, or error handling.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the scan target, lists concrete pattern examples, then gives return behavior and dependency note. Every sentence adds useful signal without repetition.
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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, checks, return values, and dependency posture. It could be stronger with explicit read-only confirmation and sibling differentiation, but the core calling information is present.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that path and text are mutually exclusive alternatives. The description echoes 'Markdown text or file' but adds no syntax, format, or conflict-resolution detail beyond the schema.
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 names a specific verb/resource: statically scan Markdown text or files for defined stylistic anti-patterns. It is highly clear about what the tool catches, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like writing_rubric or writing_compose.
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 checks listed imply the use case—linting draft prose for clichés—but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent can infer usage from the pattern list, but routing is left implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.