Validates ACH files by parsing fixed-width records, checking structure and control totals, and returning structured findings and aggregate counts.
Validate an ACH file and return structured findings and aggregate counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| rule_ids | No | ||
| min_severity | No | info | |
| reveal_sensitive | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only hints at output shape ('structured findings and aggregate counts'). It says nothing about whether validation mutates the file, whether it is read-only, how rules/severity interact, or what happens when both path and content are omitted.
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 tight sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem captured in other dimensions.
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 for a 5-parameter validation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage the definition is far too thin. An agent lacks the information to set rule_ids, min_severity, or the sensitive-data flag 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?
Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The path/content alternative, rule_ids filtering, min_severity thresholding, and especially reveal_sensitive (a security-relevant flag defaulting to false) are all left completely undocumented.
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 and resource ('Validate an ACH file') and notes the return shape (findings and aggregate counts), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like parse_ach_file or summarize_ach_file, which an agent could easily confuse with validation.
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 choose this over parse_ach_file, summarize_ach_file, or repair_control_records_tool, nor any mention that exactly one of path/content must be supplied. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.