Installs a local theme ZIP as an inactive theme without replacing existing themes, letting you add a new theme before activation.
Install a new local theme ZIP inactive without replacing existing themes. Requires themes:write plus native install/upload capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | Configured site name from aism_sites. Omit for the default site. | |
| file_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Configured site name from aism_sites. Omit for the default site.",
+ "pattern": "^[a-zA-Z0-9_.-]{1,64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, so the description adds real value: the theme is installed INACTIVE, existing themes are not replaced, and it requires themes:write plus native install/upload capability. That capability prerequisite is exactly the kind of context annotations can't convey.
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 with the action and its key constraints front-loaded; no filler and nothing repeated from the schema.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: required capability, inactive install state, and non-replacement behavior. Only the file_path semantics and any post-upload response/verification step are left unspecified.
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 50%: 'site' is well documented in the schema, while 'file_path' has no schema description. The phrase 'local theme ZIP' partially compensates by implying file_path points to a ZIP archive, but it doesn't say whether it's a server-side path, its format, or its constraints.
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 a specific verb+resource: installing a new local theme ZIP. The 'without replacing existing themes' clause and the 'local ... ZIP' qualifier implicitly separate it from aism_theme_install (repo-based) and aism_plugin_upload, but neither sibling is named outright.
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?
'Install a new local theme ZIP' implies the use case (you have a ZIP on disk rather than a slug), and the non-replacement clause signals it's not an upgrade path. There is no explicit routing guidance to aism_theme_install or aism_theme_action for other cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.