Statically inspect tidyr pipelines to identify reshaping operations and expected column schemas without running code, so you can verify data-shape changes before executing R scripts.
Statically inspect tidyr operations; data-dependent results are not inferred.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| renv_lock | No | ||
| input_schema | No | ||
| expected_schema | 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral caveat — the analysis is static and data-dependent results are not inferred — which tells the agent not to expect runtime resolution. It still omits what the result contains beyond that limitation.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the key constraint is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but as a piece of writing it wastes nothing.
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, but with five parameters and zero schema descriptions the agent has no idea how to populate renv_lock, input_schema, expected_schema, or package_versions. For a multi-input analysis tool this description is substantially incomplete.
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?
Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no titles beyond bare names like 'renv_lock' and 'expected_schema'. The description explains none of them — not what 'source' must contain, not what the schema objects are used for, not how 'package_versions' affects analysis — so it does nothing to compensate for the 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?
States a verb ('statically inspect') and a resource ('tidyr operations'), and the 'tidyr' qualifier does loosely separate it from the analyze_* siblings. However, it never says what the inspection produces (a schema? an error report? a compatibility verdict?) nor how it differs from analyze_ggplot_code or analyze_knitr_chunks, leaving the tool's actual output purpose ambiguous.
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 call this versus the many other analyze_* tools, no mention of prerequisites such as needing the source of a pipeline, and no indication of what to do with the optional inputs. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'tidyr'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.