Fetches a specified version of a library pack to seed reusable stanzas into project protocols. Use confirmation to refresh and verify changed bytes without applying map changes.
Admin: seed library///. No map change. Confirm if refreshing changed bytes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pack | Yes | ||
| path | No | ||
| repo | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| expected | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is an admin operation, that no map change occurs, and that confirmation relates to refreshing changed bytes. These are useful behavioral hints, but they are fragmentary and do not clarify mutation, failure modes, or prerequisites.
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 very short and front-loaded with 'Admin:', which aids quick scanning. However, the telegraphic fragments ('seed library/<id>/<version>/.', 'No map change.', 'Confirm if refreshing changed bytes.') lack clear sentence structure and omit necessary context.
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 tool with six parameters, a required pair, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain the core operation, parameter roles, side effects, or how it fits among the many sibling pack-related tools.
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 must compensate for the six parameters. It only indirectly references 'version' and 'confirm'; pack, path, repo, and expected are entirely unexplained. This is a severe gap for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.
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 ('seed') and a resource path ('library/<id>/<version>/'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'seed' is cryptic and the connection to the tool name 'fetch_pack' is unclear, making the purpose only vaguely distinguishable from siblings like get_pack or materialize.
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 'Admin:' prefix hints at restricted usage and 'Confirm if refreshing changed bytes' suggests a confirmation flow, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.