rush

by jamesdsizemore

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

rush_iac

Inspect Terraform configurations with existing local engines, marking results as 'skipped' when no engine is available.

Instructions

Check Terraform without rewriting; missing local engines return 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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'missing local engines return status=skipped'. However, it does not explain what 'local engines' are, whether the operation is read-only beyond the implied 'without rewriting', or any permission/error specifics. It offers some transparency but is incomplete.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes a key behavioral detail (status='skipped') without unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description is still insufficient. It does not explain what 'check' entails (validation, formatting, plan? ), what 'missing local engines' means, or what the path parameter should contain. The output schema may cover return values, but the input semantics and operational context are under-specified. For a simple tool with many siblings, more context is needed.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description does not mention the sole 'path' parameter at all. The schema only provides the name and format 'path', with 0% description coverage. An agent receives no guidance on what the path should point to (e.g., a directory, a file, a module) or how it relates to the Terraform check. This is a critical gap.

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 clearly states the action 'Check' and the resource 'Terraform', and adds 'without rewriting' to signal it is non-modifying. This distinguishes it from sibling check tools like rush_lint or rush_typecheck by focusing on Terraform specifically. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage context (when you want to check Terraform without rewriting) but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools or conditions that would select this over others, so usage is inferred rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server