Validate blueprint YAML content and request inputs against a project or blueprint version to catch configuration errors before deployment.
Validates a blueprint POST /blueprint/api/blueprint-validation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body | |
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information please refer to /blueprint/api/about |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing about what validation actually does behaviorally—whether it persists anything, whether it is a dry-run, what happens on failure, or what the response contains—beyond restating 'validates' and the POST path.
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?
It is short and front-loaded with the verb, with no filler sentences. But for a nested-body validation endpoint the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.
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?
The tool takes a nested request body with multiple optional identifiers, has no output schema, and the description says nothing about the return value, error behavior, or which body fields are needed for which validation mode. Given the complexity of the schema, the description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation.
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 100%, with documented fields for content, blueprintId, blueprintVersion, projectId, inputs and apiVersion, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no semantics about how these fields interact (e.g., inline content vs. existing blueprintId), which is a gap but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Validates a blueprint'), so the basic operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the many sibling blueprint_* tools such as blueprint_get_blueprint_inputs_schema or blueprint_create_blueprint_request, which an agent could plausibly confuse with validation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to validate versus when to create or retrieve a blueprint, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only content beyond the title is the raw endpoint path, which is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.