MCP 3DVista

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

validar_javascript

Validates JavaScript syntax before pasting code into 3DVista and flags common problems like null references, external URLs, and await misuse.

Instructions

Revisa la sintaxis de un fragmento JS antes de pegarlo en 3DVista y avisa de problemas comunes (nulls, URLs externas, await).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "codigo": "<codigo>"
    },
    "name": "validar_javascript"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`codigo`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

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 disclosure burden. It usefully names the classes of issues detected (nulls, external URLs, await), but never states whether the code is merely parsed versus executed, whether the check is side-effect free, or what form the warnings take. That leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical issue list is dense but each item adds real signal about what gets flagged.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter validator with no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate the shape of the result (boolean verdict vs. list of warnings) and whether anything is executed. It covers scope and check categories but omits the return contract, which is the most important missing piece.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'codigo' is undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by implying the input is a JS fragment intended for pasting into 3DVista, but it adds no constraints such as expected size, ES version, or whether the input must be a function body.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reviews the syntax of a JS fragment, with the concrete destination context 'antes de pegarlo en 3DVista'. An agent can immediately tell this is a static validation step, distinct from generation siblings like generar_codigo, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear usage trigger: call this before pasting JS into 3DVista. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the timing context is unambiguous for a pre-flight check.

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

Deploy Server