Install a new Module or publish an immutable revision from a JSON package, optionally reloading active workers to update the iPhone runtime.
Installs a new Module or publishes a new immutable revision. Optionally reloads the host runtime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reload | No | Reload all active Module workers after persistence | |
| package_json | Yes | Complete JSON package with manifest and sources |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: that revisions are immutable (implying no edits to existing revisions) and that the runtime reload is an optional side effect. It omits permissions/authorization requirements, idempotency/conflict behavior when a module already exists, and whether publishing a revision 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the create-vs-revision duality before the optional side effect. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema should do more: authorization needs, conflict/idempotency semantics, and how it differs from install_module are all missing. The schema is fully described, so parameter coverage is not the gap, but behavioral context is only minimally sufficient.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the optional reload behavior but adds no format or constraint detail for package_json beyond what the schema states.
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 specific verbs and resource: installs a new Module or publishes a new immutable revision, with an optional runtime reload. This is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling install_module or explain how 'upsert' relates to it, leaving ambiguity an agent must resolve elsewhere.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. It never says when to choose upsert_module over install_module, reload_module_runtime, validate_module_package, or rollback_module, which are all adjacent siblings in the same module family.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.