carve_parseParse Carve source text into a position-aware interchange AST. Resolve documents directly from source for linting, formatting, rendering, or migration.
Parse and resolve Carve into its position-aware interchange AST.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Document source (maximum 1000000 UTF-8 bytes) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| children | Yes | ||
| srcByteLength | 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": {
+ "children": {
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "srcByteLength": {
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "type",
+ "children",
+ "srcByteLength"
+ ],
+ "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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'resolve' and 'interchange AST' semantics, but does not detail any errors, limits, or side-effect-like behavior. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and the result with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter, read-only tool with a full input schema, complete annotations, and an output schema present. The description's mention of the AST result is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the 'source' parameter is already fully described as the document source with a size limit. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Parse and resolve') plus a clear target ('Carve') and a distinctive outcome ('position-aware interchange AST'). This makes it unmistakable from its siblings (carve_format, carve_lint, carve_render, carve_migrate), so an agent can tell what this tool is for.
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 intended use is implied: use this when you need to parse Carve source into an AST. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over the sibling tools or mention any exclusions, leaving some routing judgment to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.