SolidPing

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Validate check

validate_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Dry-run validate a check config before creating it. Returns blocking findings and advisory warnings with no side effects, so you catch problems early.

Instructions

Dry-run validate a check config without creating or changing anything — a pure read, no side effects. Returns {valid, fields, warnings}: 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

TableJSON 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

TableJSON 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.

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, it adds that validation is a pure read with no side effects, that valid is false exactly when fields lists all blocking findings, that warnings never block, and that it works with mcp:read tokens. These details clarify behavior and auth requirements usefully.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, and each sentence carries useful information. However, the explicit return-value explanation is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, so it is efficient rather than maximally lean.

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?

For a simple two-parameter validation tool with rich annotations, complete schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies purpose, usage context, safety behavior, and auth scope. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the required type and config parameters. The description adds only the framing of validating an assembled or modified config, without new parameter-level syntax or format detail, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

The description gives a precise verb and resource: 'Dry-run validate a check config without creating or changing anything — a pure read, no side effects.' It clearly distinguishes validate_check from sibling mutation tools like create_check and update_check by emphasizing dry-run validation with no changes.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'before create_check when you've assembled a config from scratch or modified a sample, to catch problems early.' This gives the agent a concrete pre-create validation workflow and names the sibling it should precede.

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