composer_installInstall PHP dependencies for a Drupal project by running Composer, with options to skip dev packages and optimize the autoloader in a chosen directory.
Run composer install.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| no_dev | No | ||
| optimize | No | ||
| working_dir | No | . |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing about side effects: that it writes to vendor/, may modify composer.lock, requires network access, and can fail on dependency resolution. Only a reader already fluent in Composer can infer any of this.
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 sentence with zero waste, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing. There is no front-loaded scope or precondition information for the agent to anchor on.
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 presence of an output schema partly relieves the need to describe return values, but the description still leaves three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no statement of effects. For a mutation tool that rewrites the dependency tree, this is inadequate.
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 0% across three parameters (no_dev, optimize, working_dir), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. The defaults in the schema are unexplained, including why optimize defaults to true and what working_dir '.' resolves to.
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?
"Run composer install" essentially restates the tool name and title without adding scope or distinguishing it from siblings like composer_require and composer_update. An agent learns nothing about what environment, project, or directory is affected beyond the command name itself.
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 is given, and no contrast with the adjacent composer_require / composer_update / composer_audit tools. The agent must infer that this is the right tool when it wants lockfile-based dependency installation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.