parse_ufixit_violationsExtracts accessibility violations by parsing UFIXIT report JSON, helping you identify and address issues found in Canvas course content.
Parse UFIXIT report content to extract accessibility violations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_json | Yes | JSON string from fetch_ufixit_report |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv1.8.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / report_json / descriptionAdded value: +"JSON string from fetch_ufixit_report"Input schema / properties / report_json / titleRemoved value: -"Report Json"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"parse_ufixit_violationsArguments"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"parse_ufixit_violationsOutput"Output schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-resultAdded value: +truev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating operation, so the description only needs to add context. It discloses that the tool transforms report content into a violations extraction, but says nothing about the shape or size of the result, which matters since there is no output schema.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the space saved could have been used for a return-shape or sequencing hint.
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 one-parameter read tool with an annotation, the description is minimally adequate. However, absent an output schema, it should say something about what the parsed violations look like or how they feed into fix_accessibility_issues / format_accessibility_summary.
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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage and a schema description that already says 'JSON string from fetch_ufixit_report', the schema carries the semantics. The tool description adds no further meaning about the input format or expected structure, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('parse') and resource ('UFIXIT report content') plus the output ('accessibility violations'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from siblings like fetch_ufixit_report or format_accessibility_summary.
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?
There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative. The only hint is the phrase 'UFIXIT report content', which implies it should be run on output of fetch_ufixit_report, but that connection lives in the schema description, not the tool description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.