rush

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rush_fix

Automatically fix formatting and linter issues in code at a specified path, with strict path confinement and options for dry-run or forced remediation.

Instructions

Safely auto-remediate formatting and linter issues at . Returns {status, findings[], summary}. Enforces strict path confinement.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`path`	No	.
`force`	No
`dry_run`	No
`allow_artifact_write`	No

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.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.2Sep 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / allow_artifact_write

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Allow Artifact Write",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape and the 'strict path confinement' safety behavior. However, it does not clearly state that files will be modified, how force affects that, or the purpose of allow_artifact_write. 'Safely' is vague and doesn't cover side effects or dry-run semantics.

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?

Three short sentences with no waste. The main action is front-loaded, followed by a compact return shape and a key safety constraint. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 4 optional parameters with 0% schema coverage, so the description needs to explain their roles. It only covers path and the overall purpose, leaving force, dry_run, and allow_artifact_write as unexplained flags. It also lacks usage guidance and side-effect disclosure, making the description insufficient for correct invocation without external knowledge.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only mentions <path>, leaving force, dry_run, and allow_artifact_write completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, forcing the agent to guess at the flags' meanings.

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 states a specific action ('auto-remediate') and resource ('formatting and linter issues at <path>'), clearly indicating a fix tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like rush_lint and rush_format, leaving some ambiguity about overlapping functionality.

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?

Usage is implied: use it when you want to automatically fix formatting and linter issues at a path. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no conditions, no prerequisites, and no statement about when not to use it (e.g., when you only want to lint or format without fixing).

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

Deploy Server