Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
carve-mcp

carve-mcp

Official
by markup-carve
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Format Carve

carve_format
Read-only

Format Carve source canonically and report lossy raw-format nodes to keep documents consistent and expose formatting issues.

Instructions

Format Carve source canonically and report any lossy raw-format nodes.

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": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "carve_format"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesDocument source (maximum 1000000 UTF-8 bytes)
alignTablesNoPad table cells so columns align.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueYes
lossesYes
truncatedYes
totalLossesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.10
    • addedInput schema / properties / alignTables
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Pad table cells so columns align.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.2
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "losses": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "totalLosses": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "truncated": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "value": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "value",
+    "losses",
+    "totalLosses",
+    "truncated"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: canonical formatting and reporting of lossy raw-format nodes. It does not cover edge cases like idempotency or how lossy nodes are represented, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both clauses earn their place by stating the primary formatting action and the secondary reporting behavior.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With full parameter documentation, a present output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the core operation sufficiently. The main gap is that it does not clarify how this tool relates to carve_lint or carve_diagnose_and_fix for agents deciding between formatting and validation workflows.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not explain source-size limits or alignTables behavior, which is acceptable given the schema already carries parameter semantics.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Format Carve source canonically' and adds the secondary action 'report any lossy raw-format nodes.' This distinguishes formatting from parse/lint/render/migrate siblings implicitly, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against those alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description states what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to siblings such as carve_lint or carve_diagnose_and_fix. An agent must infer usage solely from the formatting verb.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools