Check a PlatformIO project for outdated dependencies by comparing installed package versions against available releases, helping identify which libraries need updates to avoid compatibility issues.
Show which project dependencies have newer versions available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env | No | ||
| project_dir | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is useful, but the description does not mention whether the tool performs a network check, how it handles missing or partial project context, or whether it modifies any project state. It is not misleading, but it adds only minimal behavioral context.
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 wasted words. It states the action and target immediately and avoids restating the tool name or schema details.
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The description is workable for a default invocation: an agent can reasonably call it with no arguments to see outdated dependencies. However, the lack of parameter explanations for env/project_dir and the absence of guidance distinguishing this from pio_pkg_update make the definition incomplete for deliberate, non-default usage. The presence of an output schema mitigates the return-value gap, but not the selection or scoping gaps.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented 'env' and 'project_dir' parameters. The phrase 'project dependencies' weakly suggests project_dir, but it does not explain what 'env' means, when to provide it, or how the two parameters interact. The description adds little semantic value beyond the parameter names.
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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('project dependencies that have newer versions available'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like pio_pkg_update (which updates packages), pio_pkg_list (which lists packages), and pio_pkg_search (which searches packages).
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?
The description implies the tool is used when the agent needs to know which dependencies are outdated, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives. The sibling tool pio_pkg_update is the obvious alternative for actually applying updates, but the description does not route the agent toward or away from it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.