run_package_testRun tests for a specified Smalltalk package by providing its package name, so you can verify package behavior in a local Pharo or Squeak image.
Run tests for a package.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package_name | Yes | The package name to run tests for |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as test runtime, side effects, or how results are returned. It merely restates the title and does not go beyond the annotations.
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?
One sentence, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it borders on restating the title rather than adding informative detail. It is concise but contributes little structural value beyond basic clarity.
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 tool is simple with one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only semantics. The description is arguably sufficient for basic invocation, though it omits usage context. Given the low complexity, the definition is reasonably 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?
The input schema already documents package_name as 'The package name to run tests for' with 100% coverage. The description adds no new meaning about accepted formats, validation, or how the package is resolved. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema covers the parameter fully.
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 'Run tests for a package' names a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating that the tool executes tests for a package. It differentiates itself from the sibling run_class_test by specifying package rather than class. Though the title is redundant, the function 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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_class_test or eval. The description does not state any preconditions, exclusions, or intended scenarios. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the package_name parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.