FrameIO MCP Server

validate_plugin

Validate plugin structure, route and build contracts, and registry to ensure compliance before integration.

Instructions

Validate plugin structure, route contract (createRouter(deps)), build contract (tsconfig.build.json), and registry

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pluginPath": "<pluginPath>"
    },
    "name": "validate_plugin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`strict`	No	Enable strict validation (default: false)
`pluginPath`	Yes	Path to plugin directory (relative to project root, e.g. plugins/my-plugin)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Validate' with no disclosure of side effects, whether it is read-only, what happens on invalid input, or what the output format is. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely returns a validation report.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence listing the validation targets. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the list into bullet points for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the validation returns (success/failure, error details) and how the 'strict' flag changes behavior. It doesn't cover these, leaving an agent without enough information to interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it lists validation areas but doesn't explain how 'strict' affects them or how pluginPath is interpreted. Baseline 3 applies since the schema handles the documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool validates a plugin and enumerates specific aspects: structure, route contract, build contract, and registry. It distinguishes the target resource (plugin) from sibling validate_module, though it doesn't explicitly call out that distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (validate a plugin) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over validate_module or other sibling tools like generate_plugin or add_plugin_to_registry. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.