Generate shell completion code for bash, zsh, fish, powershell, or elvish to enable tab completion for Stellar CLI commands.
Print shell completion code for the specified shell
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shell | Yes | The shell type for which to generate completion code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Print' implies a non-mutating, side-effect-free read, but the description never states that it writes to stdout only, that output must be sourced/eval'd, or whether it has any filesystem or config side effects.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a trivial one-parameter command, though it could have used a second clause to hint at output usage.
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?
The tool is simple (one enum param, no output schema, no annotations), so a terse description is nearly sufficient. Still, it omits what 'completion code' is and how the caller is expected to consume it, which is the one non-obvious aspect of this command.
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 parameter is an enum with five allowed values, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds nothing beyond 'the specified shell', which is the baseline for a fully covered single-param 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?
States a specific verb ('Print') and resource ('shell completion code') plus the scope ('for the specified shell'). It is clearly distinguished from the many sibling tools, none of which generate completion scripts, though it does not explicitly call that difference out.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, and no mention of typical workflow (e.g. redirecting or eval'ing the output into the current shell). The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.