Skip to main content
Glama
lorsabyan

okf-mcp-server

by lorsabyan

Validate an OKF bundle for conformance

okf_validate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate an OKF bundle for conformance to the v0.2 spec, checking frontmatter, types, and reserved files, and returning errors and warnings.

Instructions

Check a bundle against the OKF v0.2 specification.

Errors are the three conformance rules of spec §11: every non-reserved .md file has a parseable YAML frontmatter block, every block has a non-empty type, and reserved files (index.md, log.md) follow their structure.

Warnings are soft guidance the spec says consumers MUST tolerate — broken links, missing optional fields, unknown types. A bundle with warnings is still conformant, and §11 explicitly forbids rejecting a bundle for them.

Args:

  • bundle_path (string): directory containing the bundle

  • response_format ('markdown' | 'json'): default 'markdown'

Returns: { "conformant": boolean, // true when there are zero errors "checked_version": string, // OKF version validated against "declared_version": string, // okf_version from the root index.md, when declared (§12) "concept_count": number, "error_count": number, "warning_count": number, "errors": string[], "warnings": string[] }

Examples:

  • Use when: "Is this bundle valid OKF?"

  • Use when: authoring a bundle and checking work before publishing

  • Don't use when: you want quality signals rather than conformance (use okf_health_report)

Error Handling:

  • A missing or non-directory path returns a message naming it

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bundle_pathYesPath to the OKF bundle directory
response_formatNo'markdown' for reading, 'json' for machine processingmarkdown
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only idempotent operation. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the distinction between errors and warnings, the tolerance of warnings per spec §11, the conformance rules themselves, and error handling for missing paths. This goes far beyond the annotations and schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (intro, errors/warnings, args, returns, examples, error handling). Every part earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. It's longer than average, but the complexity of the tool justifies it.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully documents the return object with field names, types, and meanings. It also covers error handling for missing paths. Given the tool's complexity (conformance logic, multiple response formats), this is a complete and self-contained description.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that bundle_path is a directory containing the bundle and that response_format is 'markdown' for reading vs 'json' for machine processing, reinforcing and expanding on the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states exactly what the tool does: 'Check a bundle against the OKF v0.2 specification.' It clearly identifies the resource (bundle) and verb (check/validate), and distinguishes itself from sibling okf_health_report by focusing on conformance rather than quality signals.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit usage guidance with 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' sections. Directly names an alternative tool (okf_health_report) for non-conformance use cases, making it easy for an agent to decide when to select this tool.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lorsabyan/okf-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server