Skip to main content
Glama
jamesdsizemore

rush

by jamesdsizemore
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

rush_containerfile

Checks container files for issues without rewriting them. Runs hadolint when available; returns 'skipped' status if missing.

Instructions

Check container files without rewriting; missing hadolint returns status='skipped'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawNo
toolNo
engineNo
statusNo
metricsNo
summaryNo
findingsNo
metadataNo
artifactsNo
duration_msNo
review_kindNo
engine_versionNo
review_providerNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2
    • 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"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key non-mutating trait ('without rewriting') and a meaningful edge case behavior ('missing hadolint returns status=skipped'). It does not describe every possible status or side effect, but it is strong for a simple check-style tool.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The primary purpose comes first, and the important behavioral edge case is stated in a compact second clause.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter, no-nesting tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is checked, that nothing is rewritten, and what happens when hadolint is missing. The main minor gaps are explicit path semantics and comparison with sibling tools, but the tool is simple enough that these are not critical.

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?

The schema has only one required path parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description never explicitly ties 'path' to a container file, even though that is inferable from context. This is a noticeable gap at 0% coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('container files'), and the phrase 'without rewriting' distinguishes it from mutating or fix-oriented tools. Mentioning hadolint makes the checking mechanism concrete and helps separate it from generic linters.

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 description clearly implies this tool is for checking container files, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like rush_lint, rush_scan, or rush_review. The use case is inferable, but no when-not guidance or alternative routing is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools