code_snifferRun PHP_CodeSniffer on a given path using Drupal coding standards to detect coding standard violations. Configure the standard and severity for targeted checks.
Run PHP_CodeSniffer with Drupal coding standards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| severity | No | ||
| standard | No | Drupal |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say what output looks like, whether it is read-only, whether it can modify files (e.g., auto-fix), what the severity threshold governs, or whether the path is a file or directory. 'Run' is the only behavioral cue.
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?
A single eight-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and tool. No filler or redundancy. Under-specification, not verbosity, is the issue.
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?
Although an output schema exists (so return values needn't be described), the definition is silent on behavioral profile, parameter meaning, and differentiation from the many adjacent code-quality siblings. For a tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, this is significantly under-specified.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It only vaguely implies the 'standard' parameter via 'Drupal coding standards', leaving path semantics (file vs directory), severity meaning, and accepted standard values completely unexplained.
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?
Names a specific tool (PHP_CodeSniffer) and the Drupal standard, which is a concrete verb-resource pairing. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the many sibling static-analysis tools such as code_audit_phpstan, code_quality_report, deprecation_scan, or security_audit. An agent cannot tell from the description alone why it would choose code_sniffer over those.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the auditor siblings. No mention of what kinds of findings it surfaces, when it is appropriate, or what prerequisites exist. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.