evalEvaluate Smalltalk code directly in a local Pharo or Squeak image to test expressions, inspect results, and debug logic without leaving your environment.
Evaluate a Smalltalk expression via the Smalltalk Interop Server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The Smalltalk code to evaluate |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations mark destructiveHint as true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'via the Smalltalk Interop Server'. It does not disclose that evaluating arbitrary Smalltalk can mutate image state, trigger side effects, or have irreversible consequences.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and the execution medium efficiently.
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 destructive execution tool, the description omits critical safety context such as potential side effects, irreversibility, and preference for safer, more targeted sibling tools. Although an output schema exists, the missing guidance around a destructive operation leaves the definition incomplete.
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 coverage is 100%, so the code parameter is already documented as 'The Smalltalk code to evaluate'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail such as expected syntax, expression format, or limitations.
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 clearly states the tool evaluates a Smalltalk expression, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_method_source or run_package_test, which perform narrower operations; this tool is the general-purpose execution entry point.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that specialized sibling tools should be preferred for specific tasks, nor any warning that this tool is for ad-hoc evaluation only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.