Compile .ci source without executing it and return diagnostics or 'compiles'. Use to check code before execution; requires local compiler on PATH or CINT_PATH.
Compile cint (.ci) source without running it (cint emit-c) and return its CINT-DIAG-1 diagnostics, or 'compiles'. Needs a local cint (PATH or CINT_PATH); look codes up with cint_lookup_diagnostic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Complete .ci source code string to check |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that execution is skipped (side-effect-free check), that a local cint is required via PATH or CINT_PATH, and that the result is either CINT-DIAG-1 diagnostics or the literal 'compiles'. It does not describe failure behavior when the binary is missing or whether warnings vs errors are included.
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?
One compact sentence front-loads the core action, then appends the prerequisite and the diagnostic-lookup pointer. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description still specifies the return contract (CINT-DIAG-1 diagnostics or 'compiles'), the environment prerequisite, and where to resolve codes. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage ('Complete .ci source code string to check'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, size, or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (compile/check) and resource (.ci source) and immediately distinguishes itself from the running siblings by noting it does NOT run the code. It even names the underlying mechanism (`cint emit-c`), so an agent can tell it apart from cint_eval/cint_test without opening any schema.
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?
Clearly implies the when: use this to verify that source compiles without executing it. It also routes the agent to cint_lookup_diagnostic for interpreting codes, and states the prerequisite of a local cint binary. It stops short of explicitly naming cint_eval/cint_test as the run-the-code alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.