rush

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rush_format

Check formatting of Python, JavaScript, and TypeScript files at a specified path using Ruff and Prettier. Returns status, findings, and summary to identify formatting issues.

Instructions

Format Python/JS/TS files at . Returns {status, findings[], summary}. Engines: ruff format (Python), prettier (JS/TS). Always check-only in v0.1.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`check`	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.

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by explicitly stating 'Always check-only in v0.1' and listing the return shape {status, findings[], summary}. It does not fully disclose failure modes, permissions, or path expectations, but the key non-mutating behavior is clearly surfaced.

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 short and every sentence earns its place: purpose, return shape, engines, and behavioral constraint. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the additional details are all relevant and specific.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and a simple output shape, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly: what it does, which files it targets, the engines, the return contract, and the check-only behavior. It could mention whether path is a file or directory or expand on the `check` parameter, but these are minor gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful semantics for path by specifying supported file types and the placeholder '<path>', and 'check-only' clarifies tool behavior. However, the `check` parameter itself is not explained—its default is false but the description does not say what setting it to true does, leaving part of the parameter surface underdocumented.

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 names a specific action ('Format'), resource ('Python/JS/TS files at <path>'), and the engines used, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like rush_lint because it is about formatting, and the check-only note further narrows its scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear usage context: Python/JS/TS files, specific engines, and that it is check-only in v0.1. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating when not to use it, but the file-type and engine details are enough to infer the intended use case.

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

Deploy Server