validate_adrValidate an Architecture Decision Record by ID: re-read and re-parse it to run its Pydantic validators and confirm the ADR is correct.
Re-read and re-parse an ADR by id, letting the models' own Pydantic validators run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.36.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the mechanism (re-reads from disk, runs Pydantic validators), which is behavior beyond the schema, but it does not state whether anything is mutated, what happens on validation failure, or whether the ADR file is touched.
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 tight sentence with the action and mechanism front-loaded; nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a validation tool with no annotations and no usage context, the description leaves the agent unclear about when to prefer it over get_adr/parse_adr, leaving a clear gap.
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 0% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description only says 'by id', adding minimal meaning (it is the ADR identifier). With one required param and a thin description, the schema plus this phrase is barely adequate but not compensatory.
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 (re-read/re-parse) plus resource (ADR by id) and adds the mechanism (Pydantic validators run). This distinguishes it from the plain get_adr sibling, though the word 'validate' in the name is only implicitly matched by the description's 'validators run' phrasing.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus get_adr or parse_adr, nor any precondition such as when an ADR might be stale or need re-validation. The agent must infer the use case entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.