Checks LSL code for language-specific lexical issues, helping you catch syntax-level problems without compiling or performing type checking.
Run language-specific lexical checks; this is not compilation or type checking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real scope information by bounding the check to lexical analysis rather than compilation or type checking. It says nothing about whether diagnostics are returned as errors or a list, or about limits on the code size, though an output schema exists to carry return shape.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and following immediately with the disambiguation. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.
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?
The tool is simple (one required string parameter) and has an output schema, so the description carries little burden and the scope statement plus exclusion is nearly sufficient. A brief note on what the checks report back, or that the input is limited in size, would make it fully complete.
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 would need to compensate, but it adds nothing about the single 'code' parameter. The parameter's meaning (the code to be lexically checked) is largely self-evident from the tool's stated purpose, but the 131072-character cap is undocumented in prose.
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 and resource: 'run language-specific lexical checks' on code. It also draws a boundary against compilation and type checking, which separates it from lsl_compile_code without naming it. 'Language-specific' is left implicit (LSL is only inferable from the tool-name prefix), which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
The clause 'this is not compilation or type checking' is a genuine when-not signal that steers agents away from lsl_compile_code for syntax/type validation. However, there is no positive 'use this when...' framing and the alternative tool is never named, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.