Validate Zalo Mini App project configuration, app-config.json format, 10MB/3MB bundle size limits, and allowed file extensions before build or deploy.
Validate project configuration, app-config.json format, bundle size limits (10MB/3MB), and allowed file extensions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectDir | Yes | Absolute path to the project directory. | |
| outputDirName | No | Output folder to inspect (default: "www"). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose genuinely useful behavior: the exact validation categories and the 10MB/3MB size thresholds and allowed-extension check. It leaves unclear whether the operation is purely read-only, what it reports on failure, and whether outputDirName affects which artifacts are inspected.
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 dense sentence with the main action front-loaded and no filler. The enumerated checks are packed but each clause carries specific information relevant to the tool's scope.
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?
For a two-parameter validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is validated but not what the caller receives (pass/fail, error list) or how failures surface. That is a meaningful gap for a validation tool whose whole value is its report.
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 100%, so both projectDir and outputDirName are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ("Validate") and resource ("project configuration") and enumerates the concrete checks performed, including numeric limits (10MB/3MB) and app-config.json format. It does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling, but the siblings are mostly auth/build/deploy operations that are not close substitutes.
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 run this versus alternatives such as zmp_build or zmp_sync_config, nor any prerequisite or sequencing hint (e.g., run before build or deploy). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.