carve_formatFormats Carve source to canonical style while flagging lossy raw-format nodes to prevent silent data loss.
Format Carve source canonically and report any lossy raw-format nodes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Document source (maximum 1000000 UTF-8 bytes) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| losses | Yes | ||
| truncated | Yes | ||
| totalLosses | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Output 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"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those: it produces canonical formatting and surfaces lossy raw-format nodes as a report. No contradiction with 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys both the primary action and the notable reporting behavior in minimal space.
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?
With one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. Nothing critical is missing.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including its type, meaning, and size limit. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ('Format'), a specific resource ('Carve source'), and a distinctive outcome ('canonically and report any lossy raw-format nodes'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like carve_lint, carve_render, carve_parse, and carve_migrate.
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?
The description clearly implies use for canonical formatting of Carve source and for detecting lossy raw-format nodes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.