[duvera · risk:low] Look up the latest version, description, license, and dependencies of an npm package. Works for scoped packages too (e.g. "@types/node"). No account required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package | Yes | npm package name, e.g. "express" or "@types/node". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully discloses the read-only behavior ('Look up') and lists the specific output fields (version, description, license, dependencies). It also notes security posture ('No account required') and includes a risk label ('risk:low'). With no annotations provided, the description effectively communicates all necessary behavioral traits.
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 two sentences: the first states the core functionality, and the second adds practical usage details (scoped packages, no account). Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. No redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It mentions the key return information (version, description, license, dependencies) and provides usage tips. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description's clarity on what the tool returns.
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% with one parameter described as 'npm package name'. The description adds examples ('express' or '@types/node') and clarifies it works for scoped packages, providing additional semantic meaning beyond the schema's brief description. This elevates the score above the baseline of 3.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Look up the latest version, description, license, and dependencies of an npm package.' It specifies the resource (npm package) and the actions (lookup). The mention of scoped packages further clarifies scope, effectively distinguishing it from sibling duvera tools like duvera__dev_pypi_package or duvera__github_latest_release.
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 explicitly states 'No account required,' indicating ease of use. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, the context of sibling tools (e.g., duvera__dev_pypi_package for Python packages) and the clear naming imply specific use cases. The guidance is adequate but could be more explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool is prefixed with its service name, and within each service, tools have distinct actions (e.g., mail_read vs. availability_find). The duvera tools cover different subdomains like dev, finance, and food with no overlap, making selection unambiguous.
All tools follow the pattern service__action_object or service__category_action, using lowercase with underscores. The order of verb and noun varies slightly (e.g., package_track vs. boardingpass_show), but the naming is highly predictable and readable.
With 52 tools, the server is large but justified as a gateway aggregating many external services. Each tool corresponds to a common task for its service, so no tool feels extraneous, though the total number is high.
The tool surface covers a wide array of services but only provides one or two basic operations per service (mostly read-only). While this suits a quick-lookup gateway, deeper workflows (e.g., creating or updating resources) are missing, leaving gaps for many use cases.
