ontology-atlas

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

validate_wiki

Read-only

Validate wiki pages against the ontology-atlas contract, checking required frontmatter, section order, and citation integrity, then get a structured problem report with codes and line numbers.

Instructions

Judge the pages under wiki/ against the wiki page contract (docs/ONTOLOGY-ATLAS-SPEC.md §11): no kind:, the seven required frontmatter fields, the five sections in order, a citation on every bullet under ## Facts, and a cited path that is both declared in sources: and present in the folder. A wiki page is not an ontology node — it carries no kind: by contract, which is what keeps it out of the graph — so validate_vault says nothing about whether one fits its own shape. This is that answer. Problem codes: kind-present, missing-field:, section-order, uncited-fact, bad-citation, bad-truncation-record, citation-target-missing, describes-needs-approval. The optional sources_truncated: key lists which paths in sources: the run read only part of; it is what lets a reader tell a document written up whole from one written up in part. Returns { pageCount, failingCount, pages: [{path, problems: [{code, message, line?}]}] } — the same shape ontology-atlas wiki-validate --json prints, so a person and an agent read one report. side effect 0. Use it after writing or editing a page, and before claiming a compile finished.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paths`	No	Vault-relative page paths to judge (`wiki/quarter-plan.md`). Omit to judge every page under `wiki/`, which has no cap because the folder decides how many there are. Max 50 when naming them, the same ceiling `get_concepts.uids` uses: past that, asking for the whole folder is one call instead of a list somebody has to assemble. A path outside `wiki/` is reported as a problem rather than silently skipped.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pages`	Yes
`pageCount`	Yes	Pages judged.
`failingCount`	Yes	Pages with at least one problem. Zero means every page judged fits.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.13.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint: it explicitly states 'side effect 0', enumerates problem codes, explains the optional `sources_truncated:` key's semantics, and describes the exact JSON return shape. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, checks, differentiation, problem codes, truncation semantics, output shape, side effect, and usage timing. It is longer than average because the tool itself is complex, but the structure front-loads the core purpose and organizes supporting detail clearly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is complete: it covers inputs, defaults, edge cases, output shape, failure codes, side effects, and usage context. The output schema exists, yet the description also summarizes the return shape so an agent understands the report at a glance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Though the schema already documents `paths` at 100% coverage, the description adds crucial semantic guidance: omitting the parameter validates every page under `wiki/`, enumerating paths is capped at 50, and paths outside `wiki/` are reported as problems rather than silently skipped. This meaningfully enriches the schema definition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Judge') and a precise resource (`wiki/` pages) against an explicitly cited contract, listing the exact checks performed. It also distinguishes itself from `validate_vault`, making the tool's scope immediately identifiable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool ('after writing or editing a page, and before claiming a compile finished') and contrasts it with `validate_vault`, clarifying why this validator is needed for a different shape. This gives an agent clear decision criteria for selecting it over the sibling validator.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.