carve_lintDetect author-facing problems and silent degradation in Carve source. Get actionable lint results to fix issues before they impact readers.
Check Carve source for author-facing problems and silent degradation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Document source (maximum 1000000 UTF-8 bytes) | |
| platforms | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| valid | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| warningCount | 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": {
+ "valid": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "warningCount": {
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "warnings": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "column": {
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "end": {
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "line": {
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "resourceUri": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "rule": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "start": {
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "rule",
+ "message",
+ "line",
+ "column",
+ "start",
+ "end",
+ "resourceUri"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "valid",
+ "warningCount",
+ "warnings"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds useful semantic context by mentioning 'silent degradation' and 'author-facing problems', but it does not disclose mechanics, permissions, or behavior beyond what the annotations and output schema already imply.
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 sentence with no filler. The key verb and target resource are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly and accurately.
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 simple read-only lint tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core call well. The main gaps are clarification of the optional platforms parameter and explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, but these are minor given the schema's enum and the visibility of sibling names.
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 description coverage is only 50%; the source parameter is described in the schema, but the platforms parameter has no property-level description. The tool description does not mention either parameter or clarify what 'platforms' means, so it fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.
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 ('Check') on a specific resource ('Carve source') with a clear objective ('author-facing problems and silent degradation'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like carve_format or carve_render, which perform transformations rather than analysis.
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 implies the tool should be used to validate Carve source for problems, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer carve_lint over carve_format, carve_render, carve_parse, or carve_migrate. It gives no exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the verb and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.