Skip to main content
Glama

validate_readme_checklist

Validate README files against community best practices checklist to ensure documentation quality with detailed scoring and actionable feedback.

Instructions

Validate README files against community best practices checklist with detailed scoring

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
readmePathYesPath to the README file to validate
projectPathNoPath to project directory for additional context
strictNoUse strict validation rules
outputFormatNoOutput format for the validation reportconsole

Implementation Reference

  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the validate_readme_checklist tool.
    export const ValidateReadmeChecklistSchema = z.object({
      readmePath: z.string().min(1, "README path is required"),
      projectPath: z.string().optional(),
      strict: z.boolean().default(false),
      outputFormat: z.enum(["json", "markdown", "console"]).default("console"),
    });
  • The primary handler function that executes the tool's logic. Validates input schema and instantiates the validator class to perform the README checklist analysis.
    export async function validateReadmeChecklist(
      input: ValidateReadmeChecklistInput,
    ): Promise<ChecklistReport> {
      const validatedInput = ValidateReadmeChecklistSchema.parse(input);
      const validator = new ReadmeChecklistValidator();
    
      return await validator.validateReadme(validatedInput);
    }
  • Core validation method in ReadmeChecklistValidator class that reads the README, iterates over checklist items, performs individual validations, and generates the report.
    async validateReadme(
      input: ValidateReadmeChecklistInput,
    ): Promise<ChecklistReport> {
      const readmeContent = await fs.readFile(input.readmePath, "utf-8");
      const projectFiles = input.projectPath
        ? await this.getProjectFiles(input.projectPath)
        : [];
    
      const results: ValidationResult[] = [];
      const categories: { [key: string]: ValidationResult[] } = {};
    
      // Run validation for each checklist item
      for (const item of this.checklist) {
        const result = await this.validateItem(
          item,
          readmeContent,
          projectFiles,
          input,
        );
        results.push(result);
    
        if (!categories[item.category]) {
          categories[item.category] = [];
        }
        categories[item.category].push(result);
      }
    
      return this.generateReport(results, readmeContent);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'detailed scoring' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as what the validation entails (e.g., criteria, pass/fail thresholds), whether it modifies files (likely read-only, but not stated), error handling, or rate limits. The description is too vague for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly stating it's a read operation). Every word earns its place, making it concise.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that performs validation (which may involve complex logic), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'community best practices' includes, how scoring works, or what the output looks like. For a validation tool with no structured support, this is inadequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain what 'community best practices' entail or how 'strict' validation differs). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('README files'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'against community best practices checklist with detailed scoring'. This differentiates it from tools like 'analyze_readme' or 'evaluate_readme_health' by focusing on validation against a checklist with scoring.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose it over sibling tools like 'analyze_readme', 'evaluate_readme_health', or 'validate_content', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tosin2013/documcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server