MCP-DOC-MID

validate_payload

Validate JSON payloads against OpenAPI schemas to verify required fields, structure, and data types before generating code.

Instructions

Valida si un payload JSON cumple con la estructura, campos obligatorios y tipos de datos del schema OpenAPI antes de generar código.

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": {
      "schemaName": "<schemaName>",
      "payload": "<payload>"
    },
    "name": "validate_payload"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`specId`	No	ID de la especificación (opcional).
`payload`	Yes	Objeto JSON a validar.
`schemaName`	Yes	Nombre del schema a validar contra (ej. "LoginRequestDto", "MemberBalanceResponseDto").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says validation occurs, but does not state whether it is read-only, what happens on invalid or valid payloads, whether errors are returned as exceptions, arrays, or booleans, or if the call has any side effects.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It starts with the key verb, names the involved resource and criteria, and closes with the temporal context. Very easy to read.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so return values and possible error behavior must be described. The current description only states that validation happens; it leaves unclear whether the tool returns a boolean, an error list, or something else.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema provide the needed meaning: schemaName, payload, and specId. The description adds no per-parameter semantics beyond what is already in the structured schema.

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 uses clear, specific verb ('Valida') and resource ('payload JSON...contra un schema OpenAPI') and even enumerates what is validated: structure, required fields, data types. This clearly distinguishes validate_payload from sibling tools that list, search, get, or generate code.

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?

The description gives a clear temporal context: 'antes de generar código', so an agent knows to call it before generate_integration_code. It does not mention explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the timing signal is quite useful.

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

Deploy Server