Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LocalForge

LocalForge

by tanskong
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

validate

Destructive

Run specified shell commands, then compare file changes against allowed and denied patterns to confirm they stay within intended scope.

Instructions

Run explicit commands and a reliable baseline-to-post-command scope check.

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": {
      "root": "<root>",
      "commands": "<commands>"
    },
    "name": "validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootYes
commandsYes
denied_patternsNo
timeout_secondsNo
allowed_patternsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.2

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive, open-world, non-idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it performs a baseline-to-post-command scope check, but does not explain what scope means, what commands can affect, or permission requirements.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

A single sentence is concise, but it is too sparse for a 5-parameter destructive tool. It lacks front-loaded critical details such as what the validation checks, leaving the agent under-informed.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite an output schema and safety annotations, the description does not explain the validation logic, command execution semantics, or any parameters. For a complex, destructive tool with 0% schema description coverage, it is not complete enough.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% for 5 parameters. The description mentions 'explicit commands' and implies a root/scope, but gives no meaning for denied_patterns, allowed_patterns, timeout_seconds, or root. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States that it runs commands and performs a scope check, but 'validate' is broad and the description doesn't clarify what is being validated or how it differs from sibling tools like shell or run_python. The purpose is only partially clear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions for selecting this over siblings. Usage is only implied by the description.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools