rush

by jamesdsizemore

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

rush_actions

Validate GitHub Actions workflows with actionlint; returns a skipped status when actionlint is unavailable.

Instructions

Check GitHub Actions workflows without rewriting; missing actionlint returns status='skipped'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`raw`	No
`tool`	No
`engine`	No
`status`	No
`metrics`	No
`summary`	No
`findings`	No
`metadata`	No
`artifacts`	No
`duration_ms`	No
`review_kind`	No
`engine_version`	No
`review_provider`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2Sep 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / metrics / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "number"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "string"
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedv0.3.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the tool does not rewrite and that a missing actionlint results in status='skipped'. This gives meaningful context about side effects and fallback behavior beyond the schema. It does not cover all possible behaviors, but for a check-only tool this is solid disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key behavioral detail about actionlint. Every part contributes information; there is no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, non-destructive behavior, and a notable edge case. However, it leaves path semantics underspecified and does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as rush_lint or rush_ci. It is adequate but not complete for confident selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the path parameter. While 'check GitHub Actions workflows' implies path points to workflow files or a repo, it does not specify whether path should be a file, directory, or repository root, nor what happens when path is invalid. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check GitHub Actions workflows'. The qualifier 'without rewriting' adds useful scope and helps distinguish it from formatting or rewrite-style tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the resource is unambiguous enough for an agent to identify what it operates on.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'without rewriting' implies this is a non-mutating check tool, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Among siblings like rush_lint, rush_ci, and rush_yaml, the choice is left to inference rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server