Skip to main content
Glama

validate_doc

Validate markdown content for critical errors, warnings, and info before manually committing to the knowledge repo.

Instructions

Validate a markdown document before committing it to the knowledge repo. Read-only.

    Does not write any files or modify the index. Not needed when using
    the write_*() tools — they validate internally. Use this only when
    you are writing raw markdown and committing it manually via git.

    Args:
        content: Full markdown content to validate
        category: Target category — one of: "architecture", "api",
                  "bugfix", "best-practice", "setup", "changelog", "test", "docs"
        project: Target project name (optional)

    Returns:
        "OK" if the document passes all checks, or a list of issues
        tagged [!] critical (blocks indexing), [~] warning, [i] info.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes
categoryNodocs
projectNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It declares read-only behavior and no file/index modification, plus return value details. Minor gap: no mention of potential errors or rate limits, but acceptable for a validation tool.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections, though somewhat verbose. Every sentence contributes meaning; could be slightly tighter but not wasteful.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and existence of output schema, description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return values comprehensively. No obvious gaps for an agent to misuse.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning by listing each parameter with descriptions, including category options and note on project being optional. Provides value beyond schema alone.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states the tool validates markdown documents before committing, with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling write tools that validate internally.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use (manual git commits) and when not needed (using write_* tools), naming alternative tools that handle validation internally.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dl4rce/flaiwheel'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server