Validate LiquidSoap script syntax to ensure error-free code. Returns a success or error response for the given script.
Provide basic syntax validation and best practices for a LiquidSoap script
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| script | Yes | LiquidSoap script code to validate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only validation operation by saying 'provide syntax validation', but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or limitations.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is concise and well-structured with no redundant information.
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?
Given the simple input schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., errors, warnings, best-practice suggestions). Since there is no output schema, a brief note about the result format would improve completeness.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'script' parameter, and the parameter description repeats the tool's purpose. The tool description adds no further detail about expected input format, size, or edge cases, so it meets the baseline but adds little.
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?
Description clearly states the tool's function: providing basic syntax validation and best practices for a LiquidSoap script. It is distinct from sibling documentation tools like get_documentation or search_functions, which are retrieval-oriented.
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?
Usage is implied by the description: an agent would use this tool when it needs to validate a LiquidSoap script or receive best practices. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.