SolidPing

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Validate check

validate_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Dry-run validate a SolidPing check configuration before creation to catch blocking errors and advisory warnings without side effects.

Instructions

Dry-run validate a check config without creating or changing anything — a pure read, no side effects. valid is false exactly when fields lists the blocking findings (every one of them, not just the first), while warnings are advisory notes that never block. Use this before create_check when you've assembled a config from scratch or modified a sample, to catch problems early. Read-only: works with mcp:read tokens.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	Yes	Check type (e.g. "http", "dns", "tcp", "icmp", "ssl").
`config`	Yes	Check-specific config to validate (e.g., {"url": "https://example.com"}).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`valid`	Yes	True when the config would be accepted; false when at least one blocking finding exists.
`fields`	No	Blocking findings; absent when there are none (valid stays true).
`warnings`	No	Advisory findings that never block; absent when there are none.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.42.0Oct 27, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / type / maxLength
```
Added value: +2048
```
- addedInput schema / properties / type / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
Changed2 schema fields changedv0.41.0Oct 23, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

Changed1 schema field changedv0.38.5Oct 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "fields": {
+      "description": "Blocking findings; absent when there are none (valid stays true).",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "code": {
+            "description": "Stable machine-readable rule code, e.g. \"SLUG_TAKEN\"; absent when there is none.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "message": {
+            "description": "Human-readable description of the finding.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Field the finding is about, e.g. \"config\" or \"slug\".",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "severity": {
+            "description": "error, warning or info; absent means error.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "valid": {
+      "description": "True when the config would be accepted; false when at least one blocking finding exists.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "warnings": {
+      "description": "Advisory findings that never block; absent when there are none.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "code": {
+            "description": "Stable machine-readable rule code, e.g. \"SLUG_TAKEN\"; absent when there is none.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "message": {
+            "description": "Human-readable description of the finding.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Field the finding is about, e.g. \"config\" or \"slug\".",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "severity": {
+            "description": "error, warning or info; absent means error.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "valid"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.32.1Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, yet the description still adds value: it discloses the auth scope ('works with mcp:read tokens') and explains that valid=false corresponds exactly to a non-empty, complete fields list while warnings never block. That is behavioral context an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 read-only guarantee is front-loaded and every sentence carries information about behavior or routing. There is mild redundancy between 'pure read, no side effects' and the closing 'Read-only: works with mcp:read tokens', but the second sentence adds the token scope.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers the operation's semantics, safety profile, auth requirement, and the create_check workflow. With an output schema present it didn't need to explain returns, and what it does say about valid/fields/warnings is a useful supplement rather than a gap-filler.

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% and the schema already documents 'type' with examples and describes 'config' as check-specific. The description adds no meaning about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies; the nested config object remains generic in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Dry-run validate a check config') and immediately scopes it as a non-mutating operation. The contrast with create_check makes it clearly distinguishable from the mutating sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit condition ('Use this before create_check when you've assembled a config from scratch or modified a sample'), naming both the alternative and the trigger. It does not address why one would choose this over run_check or diagnose_check, but the dry-run framing implies that division.

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