Generate standards-compliant .policy XML for custom Polkit actions, specifying vendor details and output path.
Generate standards-compliant .policy XML definitions for custom actions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vendor | No | Vendor name. | Textile Desktop Intelligence |
| actions | Yes | JSON array of action definitions. | |
| vendor_url | No | Vendor URL. | https://github.com/textile |
| output_path | No | Output file path. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'generate' without mentioning whether the XML is returned, written to output_path, or printed to stdout, what happens when output_path is null, or any prerequisites for generating policy definitions.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the main action and target artifact. It is concise and efficient, though it sacrifices detail that other dimensions need.
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?
Even with full schema coverage, the description omits the output contract and the structure of the actions definitions. Without annotations or an output schema, an agent lacks essential information for invoking the tool correctly, such as where the generated XML goes and what format the actions array must follow.
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 parameters already have individual descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic value, such as the expected structure of the actions JSON array or how vendor and vendor_url affect the generated policy.
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 ('Generate') and a clear resource ('standards-compliant .policy XML definitions for custom actions'). It clearly identifies the artifact produced, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling polkit tools like polkit_generate_rule.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool versus polkit_generate_rule, polkit_list_actions, or polkit_pkexec, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name and artifact type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.