Search for available or installed packages across distribution repositories using PackageKit. Find package names and details by keyword.
Search for available or installed packages across distribution repositories via PackageKit D-Bus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of package results to return. | |
| query | No | Package name or search keyword (e.g. 'neovim', 'ripgrep', 'htop'). |
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 behavioral burden. The word 'Search' implies a read-only operation and 'via PackageKit D-Bus' gives implementation context, but the description does not disclose return format, whether live repositories are queried, or any authorization/error behavior.
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 dense sentence with the key verb and resource front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.
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 only two optional parameters and a clear schema, invocation is mostly covered. However, since there is no output schema or annotations, the description leaves result shape and some operational details unspecified, making it adequate but not fully complete.
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%; query and limit are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that package search is performed.
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 names a specific action ('Search') and resource ('packages'), and adds meaningful scope ('available or installed', 'distribution repositories', 'via PackageKit D-Bus'). This clearly separates it from packagekit_install, packagekit_remove, and packagekit_refresh_cache, though it does not explicitly contrast with packagekit_what_provides.
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?
Usage context is only implied by the word 'Search'. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over packagekit_what_provides or packagekit_get_details, and no exclusions or alternative routing is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.