Find which package supplies a specific file path or binary using PackageKit D-Bus. Resolve missing dependencies by querying package ownership.
Find which package provides a specific file path or binary via PackageKit D-Bus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Absolute path or binary name (e.g. '/usr/bin/git', 'libssl.so'). |
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 burden. 'Find' and 'provides' signal a read-only lookup and the D-Bus transport is mentioned, but there is no disclosure of potential PackageKit side effects such as metadata refresh or network access, permissions, or behavior when no match is found.
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 telegraphic sentence that front-loads the core action and object with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup, the description plus the schema are sufficient to invoke it correctly. It could optionally mention the output shape or failure case, but that is not essential given the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description's phrase 'file path or binary' adds no meaning beyond the parameter description, which already provides examples and absolute-path guidance. The schema fully documents the only parameter, 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 action ('Find which package provides') against a specific target ('a specific file path or binary') and names the integration via PackageKit D-Bus. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like packagekit_search or packagekit_install.
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 use case—mapping a file path or binary to its owning package—but it never explicitly names alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over packagekit_search or packagekit_get_details. An agent can infer when to use it, but no explicit guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.