Declares named CLI actions with arguments, stdin, files, env, output modes, and timeouts so you can map and learn stateful command-line flows during black-box observation.
Define named actions (CLI invocations: argv, stdin, files, env, stdin_mode, stdout_mode, timeout_s) for learning flows of stateful CLIs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actions | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the fields of an action but does not state whether defining actions persists them, whether existing actions are overwritten, what permissions are needed, or how errors are handled. This is a significant gap for a mutation-style definition tool.
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 a single tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with the relevant field list. There is no filler or repetition.
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 explained. However, the tool accepts a complex nested object with arbitrary properties and no annotations, and the description does not clarify the mapping structure, required sub-fields, or the semantics of fields such as stdin_mode and stdout_mode. It is minimally adequate but leaves important details to inference.
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 description must compensate. It enumerates the per-action fields (argv, stdin, files, env, stdin_mode, stdout_mode, timeout_s), which is meaningful semantic information absent from the schema. It still does not explain value formats or required sub-fields, but it substantially improves understanding of the nested parameter.
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: "Define named actions" for "learning flows of stateful CLIs." It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like learn_flow or run_sequence, but the stated purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.
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 description gives the context ("for learning flows of stateful CLIs") but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_sequence, learn_flow, or discover_cli. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.