sailfish_spec_summaryParse a Sailfish RPM spec file to extract high-level metadata such as package name, version, and release for build and repository checks.
Parse high-level metadata from a Sailfish RPM spec file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | No | ||
| spec_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say what happens if the spec is missing/malformed, whether it resolves includes/macros, or what form the parsed result takes.
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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with two undocumented parameters.
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 carries the burden of explaining what 'high-level metadata' is returned (name/version/release/license?), and it doesn't. Combined with two undescribed parameters and no guidance on repo_path vs spec_path, the definition leaves real gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is 0% and neither repo_path nor spec_path is mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no help understanding the two paths or what happens when both (or neither, since neither is required) are supplied. The phrase 'from a ... spec file' weakly implies spec_path but leaves repo_path wholly unexplained.
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 gives a specific verb (parse) and resource (high-level metadata from a Sailfish RPM spec file), which cleanly separates it from build/repo/device siblings. It stops short of naming what 'high-level metadata' actually contains or which sibling would be used instead, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the many build, OBS, and repo siblings that also touch packaging data. No prerequisites, no mention of when a spec file should be inspected at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.