Skip to main content
Glama
markup-carve

carve-mcp

Official
by markup-carve
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Parse Carve

carve_parse
Read-only

Parse and resolve Carve source into a position-aware interchange AST, optionally with source positions, to support linting, formatting, rendering, or migration.

Instructions

Parse and resolve Carve into its position-aware interchange AST.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesDocument source (maximum 1000000 UTF-8 bytes)
positionsNoInclude source positions.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYes
childrenYes
srcByteLengthYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.8
    • addedInput schema / properties / positions
      Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "description": "Include source positions.",
+  "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": {
+    "children": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "srcByteLength": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "type",
+    "children",
+    "srcByteLength"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that resolution occurs and the AST is position-aware, which is modest extra context; it does not discuss determinism, error behavior on invalid source, or size limits (the schema's 1 MB cap).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and output type come first and nothing is repeated. Appropriately sized for a two-parameter parse operation.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the two parameters are fully covered by the schema. Given the tool's low complexity it is nearly complete; only ordering guidance relative to siblings and failure behavior are absent.

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 'source' (with its byte limit) and 'positions' (with its default) are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'position-aware' loosely corresponds to the positions flag but adds no format, syntax, or edge-case detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair ('Parse and resolve Carve') plus the output artifact ('position-aware interchange AST'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. However, it does not differentiate from siblings that likely parse internally (carve_lint, carve_format, carve_migrate), which weakens selection against a crowded namespace.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites or ordering relative to siblings like carve_check_targets or carve_lint. The agent must infer that this is the low-level entry point for producing an AST before patching tools run.

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