apt_showFetch complete details for a Debian package, such as version, dependencies, and maintainer, to verify package metadata before installing or troubleshooting.
Show detailed information about a package (apt-cache show).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package | Yes | Package name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'apt-cache show' detail, implying a local cache read rather than a network fetch, but says nothing about failure behavior for unknown packages or output volume. Modest added value above annotations.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and the equivalent CLI command. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. Only the distinction from apt_search/apt_list_installed is left implicit, which is a minor gap.
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% and the single 'package' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Package name'. The description adds no format details (e.g. whether versioned specs like pkg=1.2 are accepted), so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('show detailed information about a package') and pins the exact underlying operation (apt-cache show), which separates it from apt_search and apt_list_installed. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the 'detailed information' scope is distinct enough for an agent to differentiate.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as apt_search (find a package) or apt_list_installed (list installed packages). The agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.