Validate Strudel pattern code by monitoring the runtime console for errors, with configurable wait time and session ID.
Validate pattern with runtime error checking (monitors Strudel console for errors)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| waitMs | No | How long to wait for errors (default 500ms) | |
| pattern | Yes | Pattern code to validate | |
| session_id | No | Optional session ID (#108). Omit to use default session. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / properties / session_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional session ID (#108). Omit to use default session.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it monitors the Strudel console for errors, but does not mention side effects of executing the pattern or any required permissions.
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?
Efficient single sentence with no waste.
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?
Lacks details about return format, error behavior, and potential for pattern execution side effects; adequate but not 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 coverage is 100%, description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond schema definitions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool validates a pattern with runtime error checking, distinguishing it from siblings like validate_pattern_local (static) and analyze (general).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like validate_pattern_local; usage implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.