Detect violations of clean architecture layer boundaries in your codebase, ensuring dependencies follow the intended direction and preventing architectural rot.
Validate codebase against clean architecture layer boundaries
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / titlePrevious value: -"mcp_rush_arch_guardArguments"New value: +"rush_arch_guardArguments"Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"mcp_rush_arch_guardOutput"New value: +"rush_arch_guardOutput"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It only states the validation action without saying whether the tool is read-only, modifies files, requires permissions, or how it reports results. The word 'validate' suggests non-mutating behavior, but the name 'guard' could imply blocking, leaving ambiguity.
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 a single sentence with no filler words; the core action and scope are front-loaded. It is as concise as possible while conveying the essential purpose.
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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to cover arguments or return structure. However, it lacks context about scope (e.g., whole repository vs. changed files), required configuration, or typical invocation scenarios, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding when to invoke 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?
The tool accepts zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly has no parameter-specific details to add; the baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('validate') and a specific resource/scope ('codebase against clean architecture layer boundaries'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as rush_lint or rush_complexity, but the unique focus on layer boundaries gives it a reasonably distinct purpose.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of other rush_* tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention typical invocation contexts (e.g., before a commit, after architecture changes) or alternatives to consider.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.