get_install_commandBuild the npx cronus-ui add ... command for one or more components/blocks. The CLI resolves and installs each item's registry dependencies automatically. This only returns the command string — to actually install, use install_component.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes | One or more registry item names to install, e.g. ['button', 'card', 'dialog']. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by explicitly stating that the tool 'only returns the command string' and that the CLI resolves registry dependencies automatically. This is transparent about the tool's side-effect-free behavior, though it does not detail command formatting or error scenarios.
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 compact and information-dense, with no filler. It front-loads the command-building purpose, adds the dependency-resolution behavior, and closes with the crucial 'only returns the command string' distinction and pointer to install_component.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: what it builds, the input, the output nature, and the alternative for actual installation. The sibling tools are broad, but this description routes correctly by explicitly contrasting with install_component.
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%, and the names parameter already includes a clear description and example ('['button', 'card', 'dialog']'). The description only restates 'one or more components/blocks' without adding new constraints or format details, so it does not need to compensate for the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('Build'), a specific resource ('npx cronus-ui add ...' command), and the scope ('one or more components/blocks'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from installing by saying it only returns the command string, which separates it from install_component and the lookup/list sibling tools.
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?
The description gives clear usage guidance: use this tool to build the command string, and use install_component when you actually want to perform the installation. This names the relevant alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.