{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"npm_npm-mcp-validate","slug":"npm-mcp-validate","name":"mcp-validate","type":"mcp","url":"https://www.npmjs.com/package/mcp-validate","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/npm-mcp-validate","categories":["mcp-servers"],"tags":["mcp","model-context-protocol","validation","llm","tools","claude","gpt","ai"],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"npm_npm-mcp-validate__cap_0","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.mcp.tool.definition.schema.validation","name":"mcp tool definition schema validation","description":"Validates MCP server tool definitions against the official Model Context Protocol specification by parsing tool metadata (name, description, input schema) and checking structural conformance to the spec's JSON Schema requirements. Uses schema introspection to ensure tools declare proper parameter types, required fields, and nested object structures before deployment.","intents":["I need to verify my MCP tool definitions conform to the spec before publishing","I want to catch schema errors in my tool definitions early in development","I need to validate that all my tools have proper JSON Schema definitions"],"best_for":["MCP server developers building custom tools","teams integrating MCP into Claude or GPT-based applications","developers migrating existing tool definitions to MCP format"],"limitations":["Only validates against MCP spec structure — does not test runtime behavior or actual tool execution","Cannot validate tool implementations themselves, only their declarations","Requires tools to be defined in MCP-compatible format; legacy tool definitions may need conversion"],"requires":["Node.js 14+","MCP server with tool definitions exported","Valid JSON Schema in tool input_schema field"],"input_types":["MCP tool definition objects","JSON Schema objects","tool metadata (name, description, input_schema)"],"output_types":["validation report (pass/fail)","error messages with line numbers","structured validation results"],"categories":["safety-moderation","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-mcp-validate__cap_1","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.tool.name.and.description.validation","name":"tool name and description validation","description":"Validates tool naming conventions and description quality by checking that tool names follow MCP naming rules (alphanumeric, underscores, hyphens), descriptions are present and sufficiently detailed, and metadata is LLM-readable. Performs pattern matching and length validation to ensure tools are discoverable and understandable by language models.","intents":["I want to ensure my tool names are valid and follow MCP conventions","I need to verify my tool descriptions are clear enough for LLMs to understand","I want to check that all my tools have proper documentation before exposing them to Claude or GPT"],"best_for":["MCP server developers ensuring tool discoverability","teams building LLM-integrated applications with custom tools","developers optimizing tool descriptions for model understanding"],"limitations":["Cannot evaluate semantic quality of descriptions — only checks length and presence","Does not test whether LLMs actually understand the tool based on description","Naming validation is rule-based and may not catch domain-specific naming issues"],"requires":["Tool definitions with name and description fields","MCP tool metadata structure"],"input_types":["tool name strings","tool description strings","tool metadata objects"],"output_types":["validation status (valid/invalid)","naming convention errors","description quality warnings"],"categories":["safety-moderation","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-mcp-validate__cap_2","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.json.schema.parameter.documentation.validation","name":"json schema parameter documentation validation","description":"Validates that tool input schemas include proper documentation for all parameters by checking for descriptions in schema properties, ensuring required fields are marked, and verifying type definitions are complete. Inspects the JSON Schema structure recursively to catch undocumented nested properties and missing type constraints that would confuse LLMs.","intents":["I need to verify all my tool parameters have descriptions for LLM understanding","I want to ensure required parameters are properly marked in my JSON Schema","I need to check that nested object parameters are fully documented"],"best_for":["MCP developers building parameter-heavy tools","teams with complex nested tool schemas","developers prioritizing LLM-friendly tool documentation"],"limitations":["Does not validate parameter descriptions for semantic accuracy — only checks presence","Cannot determine if descriptions are sufficient for LLM understanding without runtime testing","Recursive validation may be slow for deeply nested schemas with many properties"],"requires":["Tool definitions with input_schema field","Valid JSON Schema format (draft 7 or later recommended)","Properties defined in schema objects"],"input_types":["JSON Schema objects","tool input_schema definitions","nested property definitions"],"output_types":["missing description warnings","undocumented parameter list","schema completeness report"],"categories":["safety-moderation","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-mcp-validate__cap_3","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.llm.readiness.assessment","name":"llm-readiness assessment","description":"Evaluates whether tool definitions are optimized for language model understanding by analyzing description clarity, parameter documentation, schema completeness, and naming conventions. Produces a readiness score or report indicating whether the tool definition will be effectively understood and used by Claude, GPT, or other LLMs when exposed through MCP.","intents":["I want to know if my tool definitions are ready for LLM consumption","I need to improve my tool documentation to be more LLM-friendly","I want a report on which of my tools need better descriptions or documentation"],"best_for":["teams building LLM-integrated applications with custom MCP tools","developers optimizing tool discoverability for AI models","organizations ensuring consistent tool documentation quality"],"limitations":["Assessment is heuristic-based and does not include actual LLM testing","Cannot predict real-world LLM behavior without runtime evaluation","Readiness score may not correlate with actual model performance on tool use"],"requires":["Complete tool definitions with name, description, and input_schema","MCP-compatible tool metadata"],"input_types":["tool definition objects","MCP server tool registry"],"output_types":["readiness score or status","improvement recommendations","detailed assessment report"],"categories":["safety-moderation","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"npm_npm-mcp-validate__cap_4","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.batch.tool.definition.validation.with.reporting","name":"batch tool definition validation with reporting","description":"Validates multiple tool definitions in a single operation and generates a comprehensive report showing which tools pass/fail validation, what errors were found, and which tools need remediation. Processes tool definitions from an MCP server registry or tool collection and produces structured output suitable for CI/CD pipelines or developer dashboards.","intents":["I want to validate all tools in my MCP server at once before deployment","I need a report showing which of my tools have validation errors","I want to integrate tool validation into my CI/CD pipeline"],"best_for":["teams managing large MCP tool collections","developers integrating validation into CI/CD workflows","organizations with multiple MCP servers needing centralized validation"],"limitations":["Performance may degrade with very large tool collections (100+ tools)","Report generation adds latency — not suitable for real-time validation","Batch processing does not provide per-tool remediation guidance"],"requires":["Tool collection or MCP server with multiple tools","Structured tool definition format"],"input_types":["array of tool definition objects","MCP server tool registry","tool definition files or JSON"],"output_types":["validation report (JSON, text, or structured format)","per-tool error list","summary statistics"],"categories":["automation-workflow","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":32,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"moderate","permissions":["Node.js 14+","MCP server with tool definitions exported","Valid JSON Schema in tool input_schema field","Tool definitions with name and description fields","MCP tool metadata structure","Tool definitions with input_schema field","Valid JSON Schema format (draft 7 or later recommended)","Properties defined in schema objects","Complete tool definitions with name, description, and input_schema","MCP-compatible tool metadata"],"failure_modes":["Only validates against MCP spec structure — does not test runtime behavior or actual tool execution","Cannot validate tool implementations themselves, only their declarations","Requires tools to be defined in MCP-compatible format; legacy tool definitions may need conversion","Cannot evaluate semantic quality of descriptions — only checks length and presence","Does not test whether LLMs actually understand the tool based on description","Naming validation is rule-based and may not catch domain-specific naming issues","Does not validate parameter descriptions for semantic accuracy — only checks presence","Cannot determine if descriptions are sufficient for LLM understanding without runtime testing","Recursive validation may be slow for deeply nested schemas with many properties","Assessment is heuristic-based and does not include actual LLM testing","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.35,"ecosystem":0.5000000000000001,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.15,"match_graph":0.23,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:23.904Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-22T08:10:02.995Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=npm-mcp-validate","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=npm-mcp-validate"}},"signature":"rSH7TVi+isCWHa8tE0E+evlY7DJv7IRS4GWU4xMu4sWN8jcVZfk1XVHRG+h3kbsKhAt90IIRePaG6eiKqj1XDw==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T04:07:25.821Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/npm-mcp-validate","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/npm-mcp-validate","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=npm-mcp-validate","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}