Install Arduino libraries from Library Manager by name to add required dependencies to your project. Supports version pinning and skipping dependencies.
Install a library from Library Manager, e.g. 'Servo' or 'DHT sensor library'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Library name, e.g. 'Servo' | |
| noDeps | No | Skip installing dependencies (default false) | |
| version | No | Pinned version. Omit for latest. |
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=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds only the install source ('Library Manager'), which is modest extra context but no detail on side effects like dependency installation.
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 no filler. The examples duplicate the schema's own example, which is the only slight redundancy.
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 simple three-parameter install tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits useful context such as whether dependencies are pulled in by default (partly covered by noDeps) or what a successful install returns.
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 name, noDeps and version are already documented with their own descriptions. The description's examples of library names add marginal value beyond the schema and nothing about version or dependency semantics.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Install a library from Library Manager') and gives concrete examples, which distinguishes it from lib-list/lib-search/lib-upgrade. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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 use this versus lib-search or lib-upgrade, nor any prerequisite about resolving a library name first. Usage is only implied by the name and verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.