Manage Raycast extensions from your AI assistant: list, search, install, uninstall, update, and publish store extensions using a single action parameter.
Manage Raycast extensions and store integration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Search query or extension name | |
| action | Yes | Extension management action | |
| extension_id | No | Extension ID for install/uninstall actions | |
| publish_path | No | Local path to extension for publishing |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses nothing behavioral: it doesn't say that install/uninstall modify local state, that publish pushes to a store or requires auth, or that update may be irreversible. 'Store integration' hints at network/account operations but stops short of any concrete disclosure.
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?
It is a single short phrase with no wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient front-loading. There is no structure to speak of beyond naming the resource.
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 4-parameter tool spanning six distinct actions (including destructive ones like uninstall and publish) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum clarify what each action family does and what publish/auth require.
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 every parameter including the action enum and extension_id/publish_path usage is already documented in the schema. The description adds no semantics beyond that, which is the baseline 3 when structured fields do the work.
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 phrase names the resource (Raycast extensions) and a generic verb (manage), plus a vague nod to 'store integration.' It does not distinguish install/uninstall/publish semantics from siblings like raycast_search or raycast_workflows, so the agent learns the domain but not the specific capability.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the agent must infer from the action enum alone that this tool handles install/uninstall/update/publish. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or routing relative to the other raycast_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.