rush

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rush_visual

Run visual baseline checks to compare UI screenshots and identify unintended changes. Pass --accept to update stored baselines when differences are expected.

Instructions

Check visual baselines; updates require --accept.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`options`	Yes
`allow_slow`	No
`allow_build`	No
`allow_browser`	No
`allow_network`	No
`allow_download`	No
`allow_cache_write`	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.

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

B3.1/5.0

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 does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: updates are gated behind --accept, implying the default operation is read-only checking. Still, it does not explain side effects, permission requirements, or how the many allow_* flags affect behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and front-loaded, with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the core purpose and the key update caveat. It is concise, though perhaps too terse to fully support a 9-parameter tool.

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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and minimal description, this is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with the right options. The output schema may document return values, but the description still leaves the allow_* flags and options semantics entirely unexplained.

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 explain any of the 9 schema parameters. The only parameter-like guidance is the external --accept flag, which is not part of the schema. With such low coverage, the description should compensate but does not address path, options, or any allow_* flags.

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 names a clear action and object: 'Check visual baselines'. This identifies the tool as a visual regression checker and is specific enough to distinguish it from most siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate it from a related tool like rush_snapshot, but the core 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 phrase 'updates require --accept' provides useful context: normal invocation is a check, while updating baselines requires an explicit flag. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it, so the guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server