Retrieve BPMN 2.0 validation rules to identify errors in process models and ensure they meet modeling standards.
Reglas de validación BPMN 2.0.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_validation_rules"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0-typescriptDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the subject matter and does not describe return format, read-only nature, or any other behavior. The 'get' prefix implies retrieval, but the description itself adds no behavioral detail.
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?
The description is extremely short and contains no filler, making it easy to scan. It is slightly under-specified as a fragment, but for a parameterless getter this level of brevity is acceptable.
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?
For a tool with no parameters and no annotations, the description conveys the high-level resource but omits the return format and any explanation of what these validation rules look like. With no output schema to fill that gap, a bit more detail would make the tool fully self-explanatory.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description neither adds nor detracts from that.
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 identifies the resource as BPMN 2.0 validation rules, which is more informative than a pure tautology and separates it from validation actions like validate_bpmn_file and validate_bpmn_xml. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement and does not explicitly say that the tool returns or retrieves these rules.
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?
There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus its many catalog/getter or validation siblings. No context, exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.