Apply Solhint autofixes to a single Solidity file. Previews changes by default; set write: true to save the fixed source.
Apply Solhint autofixes to one Solidity file. Previews the result by default; pass write: true to save it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| write | No | Write the fixed source back to the file. Defaults to false (preview only). | |
| filePath | Yes | Path relative to the project root |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key safety trait: the default is a non-mutating preview and mutation only occurs with write:true. However it does not say whether saved fixes are reversible, what happens on unfixable files, or how failures are reported.
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?
Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the mutate-vs-preview distinction immediately following; nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, and the safety-relevant default. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior when no fixes apply or what the preview returns.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description's 'pass write: true to save it' merely restates the schema's own default note, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond it — the baseline 3.
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 ('Apply Solhint autofixes') and a specific resource scope ('one Solidity file'), which separates it from the project-wide lint_project and the family of lint_* siblings at a glance.
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?
Explains how to use the tool (preview by default, write:true to save) but gives no guidance on when to choose fix_file over siblings like fix_solidity or lint_file, nor any prerequisite or post-fix verification advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.