Compress CLI output from git, npm, cargo, or pytest while preserving errors and key details, so AI agents can fit more command results into context windows.
Compress CLI output (git, npm, cargo, pytest, etc.) preserving errors and key info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| command | No | ||
| max_lines | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.63Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses the retention policy ("preserving errors and key info"), which tells the agent this is a lossy transform, but it does not explain what compression actually means (truncation vs. summarization), whether output is deterministic, or any auth/rate constraints.
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 that states the action, the input domain, and the retention guarantee with no filler. It is efficient, though it could have spent a few more words on the 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the one sentence covers the core operation. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no annotations, the description is too thin on the command/max_lines parameters and on what compression does.
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 0%, so the schema documents nothing and the description must compensate. The phrase "CLI output" loosely maps to text and the examples hint at the command parameter, but max_lines and command are never mentioned, leaving their semantics and defaults 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 uses a specific verb+resource ("Compress CLI output") and lists concrete sources (git, npm, cargo, pytest), so the agent can distinguish it from compress_image and other siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling or delimiting scope beyond examples, but the 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?
Usage is only implied by the example source tools; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative tool is named for the same job. An agent can infer intent but gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.