package_removeUninstall a software package from the host system using its package manager. Executes the appropriate removal command to delete the specified package.
Remove a package. Developer/full profile only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the destructiveHint annotation by saying 'Remove', and adds a behavioral constraint (developer/full profile only). However, it does not disclose side effects such as dependency removal or whether the action is irreversible.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler: the core action is front-loaded, and the permission note follows. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.
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 one-parameter destructive tool, the annotations plus the permission note cover most safety context. Missing details include the exact package identifier format and potential dependency effects, but the description is minimally adequate.
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 schema's 'package' property has no description (0% coverage), and the description does not clarify whether it expects a package name, ID, or version spec. The agent must rely on the parameter name alone.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Remove a package') that clearly states the tool's function. It is easily distinguished from the sibling package tools (package_install, package_update, package_search, package_info) without requiring schema inspection.
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?
The addition 'Developer/full profile only' gives a useful permission restriction, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over package_install or package_update. The usage context is implied by the verb 'remove' rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.