Atualizar o aspa-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds substantial context beyond that — the concrete side effects (pull, dependency install, service restart), the guard condition that aborts on local modifications, and the post-call client reload ritual. It does not describe failure modes such as an already-latest version or what a failed npm install leaves behind, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: action and internals first, refusal condition second, required follow-up last. Every clause carries operational information an agent needs; no restating of the title or filler.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it covers what runs, what aborts the run, and what the agent must tell the user afterward. Partial gaps are the lack of stated success/error reporting and version-already-current behavior, which an agent would want when deciding whether to call it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to interpret an input schema.

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 (update) plus the exact resource (aspa-mcp from GitHub) and enumerates the concrete mechanics: git pull, npm install when dependencies changed, restart the background service. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like aspa_reopen or aspa_setup_check, which do not self-update the server.

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?

Gives a clear application context plus a hard precondition: it refuses when there are local code changes, which tells the agent when this call will fail and must be resolved first. It also prescribes the required follow-up action per client (Claude Code /mcp → Reconnect aspa; Codex close and reopen). What is missing is explicit guidance on when this should be preferred over alternatives such as aspa_reopen or aspa_setup_check.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.