Parse Quarto QMD YAML and fenced R chunk options safely without rendering or executing code. Inspect document structure and settings for validation or migration.
Safely parse QMD YAML and fenced R chunk options without rendering or executing code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| r_version | No | ||
| dependencies | No | ||
| project_config | No | ||
| quarto_version | 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 a meaningful behavioral fact beyond that: parsing does not render or execute code, which is important for QMD files containing R chunks. It still does not describe error behavior or malformed-input handling.
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 filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it leaves important semantics unstated rather than being verbose.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete: optional configuration parameters and usage distinctions remain opaque to an agent.
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 tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It does not clarify the expected source format or what r_version, dependencies, project_config, and quarto_version are for.
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?
States a specific verb ('parse') and resource ('QMD YAML and fenced R chunk options') and scopes it with 'without rendering or executing code.' It distinguishes itself from project-level or chunk-only analysis by focusing on a QMD document, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The phrase 'without rendering or executing code' implies a safe static-analysis context but does not tell the agent when to choose this over analyze_quarto_project or analyze_knitr_chunks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.