Validate global graph references, Chain paths, Plan targets, Background scopes, contracts, and checkpoint-backed completion to ensure project memory integrity.
Validate global graph references, Chain paths, Plan targets, Background scopes, contracts, and checkpoint-backed completion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectRoot | No | ||
| taskContextId | No | ||
| includeStructured | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Input schema / properties / taskContextIdAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. 'Validate' implies a read-only checking operation, but the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, output format, or failure behavior, leaving the agent unable to predict what invoking the tool will do beyond running checks.
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?
The description is a single dense sentence with no filler; the main verb is front-loaded. However, the long list of capitalized domain terms is compressed to the point of ambiguity, slightly hurting readability.
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 has no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema parameter coverage, and many siblings, yet the description only lists validation subjects. It lacks the usage, parameter, and output information an agent needs to select and call this tool correctly.
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% and the description never maps projectRoot, taskContextId, or includeStructured to the validation concepts it lists. An agent cannot determine what values are appropriate for these parameters from either the schema or the description.
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 names a clear action ('Validate') against a specific set of graph, plan, and contract references, which separates it conceptually from mutation/search siblings like graph_mutate and graph_search. However, the comma-separated object list is jargon-heavy and does not clarify what a successful validation means or returns.
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 guidance about when to call this tool instead of graph_search, graph_flow, or architecture_connect, nor any exclusion criteria. The context signals show a large sibling group, so the absence of routing information is a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.