Checks DGMO diagram markup for syntax errors and warnings without rendering, providing structured feedback to fix issues before generating diagrams.
Validate DGMO markup without rendering. Returns structured parse errors and warnings. Much faster than render_diagram — use this to check syntax before rendering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dgmo | Yes | DGMO diagram markup to validate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2v0.1.21v0.1.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool does not render and returns structured errors/warnings, and that it is faster. While it doesn't discuss auth or rate limits, these are less critical for a validation tool. A minor omission: it could explicitly state that it does not modify data, but 'without rendering' implies no side effects.
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 two concise sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. No gaps remain.
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%: the parameter 'dgmo' is described as 'DGMO diagram markup to validate'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 clearly states the verb 'validate' and the resource 'DGMO markup', and specifies it returns structured parse errors and warnings. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like render_diagram by noting it does not render.
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 explicitly says to use this tool to check syntax before rendering and mentions it's much faster than render_diagram. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and contrasts with an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.