Quiet File Team MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

validate_layout_manifest

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compares a supplied path manifest against required free-core paths and reports missing entries, so you can review a known list for completeness without reading the filesystem.

Instructions

Compare a supplied file manifest with required free-core paths; unlike generate_team_config, report omissions rather than draft settings. Use to review a known path list, not to read a filesystem, validate contents or prove runtime safety. Free offline computation, no network or paid API; bounded list processing with unbenchmarked latency. Absolute paths, traversal and oversized lists fail rather than being silently normalized. Returns completeness, missing paths and limitations; extras do not prove installation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "paths": "<paths>"
    },
    "name": "validate_layout_manifest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paths`	Yes	Caller-supplied relative file paths; no absolute paths, traversal, controls or backslashes. Each path at most 240 characters.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`missing`	Yes
`complete`	Yes
`limitations`	Yes
`present_required`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), yet the description still adds cost/execution context ('free offline computation, no network or paid API'), latency caveat ('unbenchmarked latency'), and failure semantics ('absolute paths, traversal and oversized lists fail rather than being silently normalized'). It even qualifies the result interpretation ('extras do not prove installation'), which is behavior an agent could not infer from annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose and the sibling contrast are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. It is dense but not padded; minor phrasing like 'bounded list processing with unbenchmarked latency' is slightly awkward but still informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only comparison tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusions, failure modes, cost profile, and result caveats. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and how to interpret the output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents relative-path constraints and the 240-character limit. The description still adds value by stating that invalid paths fail loudly rather than being normalized, which is error behavior the schema does not express.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compare a supplied file manifest with required free-core paths.' It also contrasts itself with a named sibling ('unlike generate_team_config, report omissions rather than draft settings'), so an agent can distinguish the two without inspecting either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the intended use ('Use to review a known path list') and explicit exclusions ('not to read a filesystem, validate contents or prove runtime safety'), plus a named alternative in generate_team_config. Both the positive and negative selection criteria are present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server