deck_frontmatter_schemaValidate the frontmatter structure for deck headmatter and slide sections. Use it to ensure YAML formatting is correct for deck settings and individual slides.
The JSON Schema for deck frontmatter: $defs.headmatter for the YAML block at the top of deck.mdx (deck settings + first slide), $defs.slide for every other slide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | Which part (default both). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-open-world operation, and the description adds useful domain context about the returned schema's structure. It explains that $defs.headmatter covers the top YAML block and first slide, while $defs.slide covers other slides.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It efficiently names the resource and explains the two schema definitions.
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 low-complexity, read-only schema retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains the shape of the returned schema, though it does not route the agent away from or toward relevant sibling tools.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented. The description adds meaning beyond 'Which part' by clarifying what headmatter and slide refer to in the deck structure, making the enum values easier to interpret.
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 clearly identifies a specific resource: the JSON Schema for deck frontmatter. It also distinguishes the two schema definitions it covers, but does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as deck_reference.
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 implied: use this when you need the frontmatter schema. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to related tools like deck_reference or deck_update_frontmatter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.