Confirm schema correctness by checking native model keys, types, references, and constraints prior to SQL DDL or JPA entity generation.
Validate native model keys, types, references and constraints. This is not a migration-safety, authentication or payment implementation review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful scope boundary by excluding other review types, but it does not explain what happens on validation failure, error formats, or any other behavioral trait beyond the annotation-covered basics.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clear exclusion. There is no filler, though the negative sentence could be tightened or merged into a broader usage clause.
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?
For a tool with a nested-object input, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It does not explain the expected input structure, validation result format, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.
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?
The input schema has zero description coverage for its single required 'schema' parameter, which is an unstructured object with additionalProperties allowed. The description does not clarify what the schema argument should contain or its expected shape, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (Validate) and enumerates the aspects being checked: native model keys, types, references, and constraints. It distinguishes the tool from the sibling set, which consists of project/template/export operations, though the phrase 'native model' remains slightly jargon-dependent.
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 offers negative scope guidance ('This is not a migration-safety, authentication or payment implementation review'), which helps prevent misuse. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus any alternative, and no positive invocation context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.