Validate a DDEX package directory by checking BatchComplete, relative URLs, DeliveryType, and message-file MD5 to confirm delivery conventions before submission.
Validate a DDEX package directory: BatchComplete filled, relative URL, DeliveryType, MD5 of message file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to the package directory containing BatchComplete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does list concrete validation criteria, which is useful behavioral detail beyond a bare 'validate'. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, what happens on failure, whether it throws or returns errors, and any side effects or output format.
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 a colon-separated list; every element earns its place and there is no filler.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally explain return/error semantics for a validator. Inputs are fully clear and the checks are listed, but an agent cannot tell what a validation result looks like, which is a meaningful gap for this tool type.
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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single required 'path' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add syntax, format, or example detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('DDEX package directory'), then enumerates the exact checks performed (BatchComplete, relative URL, DeliveryType, MD5). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling validate_ern_xml, which validates a different artifact.
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 says what is validated but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like validate_ern_xml or the other sibling tools. It contains no when/when-not or prerequisite information; usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.