Check VEX code for errors by cooking a wrangle node. Provide the node path to check syntax and catch issues before running.
Validate VEX code by cooking the node and checking for errors.
Args: node_path: Path to the wrangle node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.24.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real trait: validation happens by cooking the node, implying side effects (cook/dirty propagation), which is useful. But it says nothing about what happens on failure, whether errors are returned or raised, permissions, or cost — significant gaps for an unannotated tool.
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?
Front-loaded single sentence stating purpose and mechanism, with no filler. The Args section is somewhat redundant for a single argument already named in the schema, keeping it just short of a 5.
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 one-parameter validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the core idea but omits what a successful vs. failed validation yields (error list, boolean, exception), which an agent needs since nothing structured supplies it.
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 0% and the schema only offers the title 'Node Path'. The description adds meaning by specifying it is a path to the wrangle node, which is more than the schema provides. However, it gives no path syntax, placement expectations, or whether relative/absolute paths are accepted.
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?
States a specific verb (validate) and resource (VEX code) plus the mechanism (cook the node, check for errors), which is more informative than a tautology and lets an agent separate it from generic node-error tools. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_node_errors_detailed or find_error_nodes, so full sibling differentiation is missing.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as get_node_errors_detailed, verify_network, or find_error_nodes, and no workflow placement (e.g., after set_wrangle_code). The only implicit cue is 'wrangle node' in the args.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.