Install external Stata packages like estout, ivreg2, or rdrobust directly into the open Stata GUI using SSC or net sources.
在已打开的 Stata GUI 中安装外部包，如 estout、ivreg2、rdrobust 等
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | 安装来源：ssc（默认）或 net | |
| package | Yes | 包名称，例如 estout、ivreg2、rdrobust |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the prerequisite that a Stata GUI must already be open, but it does not mention side effects of installation, network requirements, overwriting behavior, or failure conditions. For a mutating operation, this is a significant transparency 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, environment, and examples with no filler. Every part earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter installer, the description plus fully documented schema provide enough information to invoke the tool correctly. The main gaps are behavioral side effects and expected output, but these are not blocking for a basic install operation.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters: package names and source with an enum and default. The description adds example packages but no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('install'), a clear resource ('external packages'), and the environment ('in the already open Stata GUI'), with concrete examples like estout, ivreg2, and rdrobust. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations such as running commands, writing do-files, or reading results.
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 when to use the tool: when an external Stata package needs to be installed in an already-open GUI session. However, it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives such as stata_run, which could also execute an install command, nor does it state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.