Check the installed and available app version to determine whether an update is needed.
Installed and latest version of the app.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "bitpull_updates"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's only added value is the hint that both installed and latest versions are returned. It says nothing about whether a network call is made, latency, failure modes when offline, or what the response looks like.
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 short and front-loaded, but it is a noun phrase rather than a sentence with an actor and verb, which reads as under-specification rather than deliberate brevity. A single added clause naming the action and the sibling contrast would cost little.
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?
With no output schema, the description is the only place the return shape could be explained, and it only vaguely gestures at 'installed and latest version'. For a zero-arg read tool the definition should state what comes back and how it relates to bitpull_check_updates; neither is covered.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing.
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 fragment 'Installed and latest version of the app' indicates the resource (app version info) but supplies no verb, so an agent cannot tell whether it retrieves, compares, or triggers an update. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling bitpull_check_updates, which sounds like the same 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all, no mention of prerequisites, and no statement of how this differs from bitpull_check_updates. The agent is left to guess between two apparently overlapping version tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.