Execute lint commands to catch coding errors and maintain code quality, returning linting errors for the specified working directory.
Runs the linter and returns any linting errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Working directory | /app |
| command | No | Lint command to run | npm run lint |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states that linting errors are returned. It fails to disclose that the configurable 'command' parameter can execute arbitrary shell commands (not just lint), which may have side effects, and it says nothing about lint failures being a normal, non-exceptional outcome.
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 eight-word sentence front-loads the verb and covers both purpose and return value with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though slightly terse given the absence of annotations.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely adequate: it states what the tool does and what it returns. However, it does not position run_lint among its verification siblings or warn that the command parameter permits arbitrary command execution, which are meaningful gaps given no annotations or output schema.
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%, with 'cwd' and 'command' already documented including defaults, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Runs the linter') plus an outcome ('returns any linting errors'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but 'the linter' is distinct enough from siblings like run_typecheck and run_tests to avoid confusion.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling verification tools such as run_typecheck, run_tests, verify_build, or get_impact. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.