import_packageImport a Smalltalk package into the image from a specified file path, using the package name and optional path for the file.
Import a package from specified path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | The path to the package file to import | /tmp |
| package_name | Yes | The name of the package to import |
| 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 already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral detail about what importing does—whether it overwrites existing packages, installs dependencies, or modifies the project. For a destructive operation, this lack of consequence disclosure is a significant gap.
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 one short sentence with no wasted words, and the primary action is immediately stated. It earns its place as a concise definition, even though more explanatory content could have been added elsewhere.
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?
The output schema and fully described parameters cover the mechanical invocation details, so the agent knows what inputs to provide. However, the semantics and consequences of 'import' are under-specified, and there is no differentiation from related tools, making this only minimally complete.
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 baseline is 3; both package_name and path already have descriptions in the schema. The description only reinforces the path concept without adding format, restrictions, or edge-case meaning.
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 states a specific verb ('import'), a resource ('package'), and a source ('specified path'), which makes the core action identifiable. It is distinct from obvious siblings like export_package, though it does not clarify what 'import' means in this environment.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as install_project, export_package, or list_packages. An agent must infer the appropriate usage purely from the name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.