Converts raw compiler logs into structured JSON diagnostics with file, line, column, code, and message fields, so agents can act on build errors without parsing ANSI noise.
Extract clean, structured JSON diagnostics (file, line, col, code, message) from raw compiler output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output | Yes | Raw compiler stdout/stderr or log text. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the output structure (file, line, col, code, message), but says nothing about statelessness, behavior on unparseable/malformed input, handling of multiple compilers/formats, or failure modes for a parser.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste that immediately states verb, resource, and output fields. Nothing redundant or padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one simple string parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does compensate by enumerating the returned diagnostic fields. An agent can invoke it correctly, though edge-case behavior (malformed input, unsupported formats) is left unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Raw compiler stdout/stderr or log text'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or size constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb (extract/parse), a specific resource (compiler errors/diagnostics), and the exact shape of the result (file, line, col, code, message). It doesn't differentiate from the sibling tools detect_toolchains/run_isolated_build, but those operate in a clearly different domain, so the risk of confusion is low.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the input is 'raw compiler output,' which signals the situation to apply it, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no condition for preferring it over run_isolated_build, and no exclusions. Adequate but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.