Check an Arduino library's dependency status to see what it requires or is missing before compiling when an install seems incomplete.
Check the dependency status of a library (what it needs, what's missing). Run before compile when a library install seems incomplete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Library name, optionally pinned: 'AudioZero' or 'AudioZero@1.0.0' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it reports needs and gaps, which is useful diagnostic context, but says nothing about output format or failure behavior beyond that. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Two tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the usage cue trailing. No filler, every clause earns its place.
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 read-only, single-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema absent but a described result shape, the description covers enough to invoke it correctly. It could mention what a 'missing' result looks like, but nothing essential is missing.
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 100% and the single 'name' parameter already documents the optional pinning syntax ('AudioZero@1.0.0'). The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 (Check) and resource (dependency status of a library) with a parenthetical clarifying the output (what it needs, what's missing). This clearly separates it from siblings like lib-list, lib-search, and lib-install, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.
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?
Gives a concrete trigger: 'Run before compile when a library install seems incomplete.' That is a clear use context. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., lib-install) or stating when-not-to-use, so it's strong but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.