Semantic Rails MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

validate_project

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a semantic project package across parse, runtime, examples, tests, impact, or release modes to catch broken metrics before trusting analytics answers.

Instructions

Validate the package: mode parse, runtime, examples, tests, impact or release. Use parse after each change and runtime (compiles and queries every measure and metric) before trusting answers. Gotcha: runtime, examples, tests and release query the warehouse and may build a seeded DuckDB file; impact needs compare_path or base_ref.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No		parse
`base_ref`	No
`environment`	No
`full_report`	No	true: the whole report (default: a summary; see its report field)
`compare_path`	No
`project_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.2Oct 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / full_report

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "true: the whole report (default: a summary; see its report field)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.3.1Sep 26, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / base_ref / title
```
Removed value: -"Base Ref"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / compare_path / title
```
Removed value: -"Compare Path"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / environment / title
```
Removed value: -"Environment"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / mode / title
```
Removed value: -"Mode"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / project_path / title
```
Removed value: -"Project Path"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"validate_projectArguments"
```
- removedOutput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"validate_projectDictOutput"
```
First observedv0.2.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: several modes query the warehouse and may build a seeded DuckDB file, and impact has a parameter prerequisite. This side-effect disclosure is the kind of context readOnlyHint/idempotentHint do not convey, though there is mild tension with readOnlyHint=true since a file is created as a byproduct. It omits auth requirements and per-mode failure behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the mode list, then usage guidance, then the gotcha. Every sentence carries distinct information (modes, when-to-use, side effects/prerequisites) with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the modes plus prerequisites plus side effects cover the core invocation path for a 6-parameter tool. The unexplained 'environment' parameter and the unaddressed overlap with impact_project/diff_project keep it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is only 17% (only full_report is documented), so the description must compensate and largely does: it enumerates the valid mode values (the schema has no enum), explains what parse/runtime do, and links compare_path/base_ref to the impact mode. The 'environment' parameter is never explained anywhere, leaving a gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Validate the package') and enumerates the six modes (parse, runtime, examples, tests, impact, release), so an agent knows what the tool does and its scope. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings that clearly overlap, notably impact_project and diff_project, even though the 'impact' mode covers the same ground. Terminology also drifts between 'package' and the tool's 'project'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit sequencing advice ('Use parse after each change', 'runtime ... before trusting answers') and states a prerequisite for the impact mode ('needs compare_path or base_ref'). It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to the overlapping sibling tools (impact_project, diff_project) that an agent might otherwise pick.

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