Fetch Netlify coding rules for serverless, edge functions, blobs, image CDN, forms, or database before creating or editing code. Ensures compliance with SDK and function standards.
ALWAYS call when writing serverless or Netlify code. required step before creating or editing any type of functions, Netlify sdk/library usage, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| creationType | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the context that this is a mandatory pre-step before code creation/editing, and it does not contradict the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not describe what the tool actually returns, how it behaves, or what the agent should do with its output; the read-only annotation lowers the burden, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 short and front-loaded with 'ALWAYS call', making the key instruction immediately visible. It loses some polish due to a lowercase sentence fragment and the vague 'etc.', but overall it is concise and every sentence contributes to the usage directive.
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?
Given that this is a one-parameter read-only tool, the description should at least explain that it returns the relevant coding rules for the selected creationType and what those categories cover. It does neither, leaving the agent with a strong imperative but an incomplete functional contract.
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 never mentions creationType or any of its enum values (serverless, edge-functions, blobs, image-cdn, forms, db). The description only refers vaguely to 'serverless or Netlify code' and 'functions', leaving the agent without the parameter-level meaning needed to call the tool correctly.
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 clearly positions the tool as a required pre-step for writing serverless or Netlify code, and specifically for creating or editing functions and using the Netlify SDK/library. This is more informative than the tool name alone and distinguishes it from the sibling service reader/updater tools, though it never states the tool's core action (e.g., 'retrieves coding rules').
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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'ALWAYS call when writing serverless or Netlify code' and 'required step before creating or editing any type of functions, Netlify sdk/library usage'. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the use context is strong and unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.