Generate a standard Pumpkin plugin boilerplate project configured for wasm32-wasip1. Provide a plugin name and absolute destination directory to start development quickly.
Generates a standard boilerplate project for a Pumpkin plugin, configured for wasm32-wasip1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pluginName | Yes | The name of the plugin (e.g. 'my-cool-plugin') | |
| destinationDir | Yes | The absolute path where the plugin project should be created |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the target platform (wasm32-wasip1) but says nothing about side effects: whether files are written to disk, whether it overwrites/fails on an existing directory, or whether it runs install/build steps.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key action and platform target come first.
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?
A mutating, filesystem-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema should describe what artifacts get created and how it behaves on an existing destination. Those obligations are unmet.
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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema (pluginName, destinationDir with absolute-path note). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Generates') and resource ('boilerplate project for a Pumpkin plugin') plus a configuration detail (wasm32-wasip1). This clearly separates it from the read-only sibling tools (list_api_files, read_api_file, etc.), though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from them.
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 guidance on when to scaffold vs. read existing API code, no prerequisites, and no note about what happens if the destination already contains a project. The agent must infer appropriate usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.