Skip to main content
Glama
jamesdsizemore

rush

by jamesdsizemore
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

rush_templates

Validate code templates in place without rewriting them; runs djlint checks when available, and returns status='skipped' if djlint is missing.

Instructions

Check templates without rewriting; missing djlint 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

A3.6/5.0
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 of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool does not rewrite and that a missing djlint results in status='skipped', which gives an agent important expectations about side effects and failure handling.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately conveys the most important behavioral constraints. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the non-mutating behavior, and the key skipped status condition. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'templates' refers to, but the available context plus output schema covers the essential calling requirements.

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%, and the description does not mention the single 'path' parameter at all. The parameter is somewhat self-evident from its name and 'path' format, but the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage by explaining what kind of path is expected or how it relates to templates.

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 verb ('Check') and resource ('templates') and adds the key qualifier 'without rewriting', which clarifies the tool's non-mutating scope. It is clear enough to distinguish from the many sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'Check templates without rewriting' implies that this tool is appropriate when a non-mutating template check is desired, which is a legitimate usage signal. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related siblings like rush_lint or rush_format, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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