Statically inspect knitr and Quarto chunk options in Rmd/Qmd sources to verify settings without rendering or executing code.
Inspect knitr and Quarto chunk options statically; never render or execute chunks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| renv_lock | No | ||
| document_type | No | ||
| package_versions | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the useful clarification that the tool is static and never renders or executes chunks, but it does not cover parsing behavior, error handling, or other operational details beyond that safety constraint.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It efficiently communicates the core action and safety constraint.
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?
The tool has four parameters, one required, with zero schema description coverage, yet the description provides no parameter semantics or usage context. Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the missing parameter and routing information leaves the definition substantially incomplete for this complexity level.
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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters. Parameters such as renv_lock and package_versions are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent without meaningful semantics for them.
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 verb and resource: inspect knitr and Quarto chunk options statically. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as analyze_quarto_document or analyze_quarto_project.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not conditions. The phrase 'never render or execute chunks' describes a behavioral constraint rather than a usage rule or sibling routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.