RepoPilot

Check a dependency before adoption

check_dependency

Read-onlyIdempotent

CALL when the user or agent is about to add, upgrade, trust, fork, or deploy an npm package or public GitHub repository. Returns a lean repository-level recommendation, confidence, evidence gaps, CVEs, maintenance, ownership, license, CI/tests, Scorecard, freshness, and next actions. DO NOT use for code navigation. Pass exactly one of repo or package. A favourable result does not validate an exact package version or compatibility.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	No	Public GitHub repository as owner/repo or a github.com URL.
`owner`	No	Repository owner, when repo carries only the bare name. Optional: prefer the single owner/repo form in repo.
`package`	No	npm package name, for example lodash or npm:@scope/pkg. To judge a specific VERSION rather than the package as a whole, use evaluate_dependency_change instead.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	Yes
`agent`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`schema_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / owner

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Repository owner, when repo carries only the bare name. Optional: prefer the single owner/repo form in repo.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedAug 23, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / package / description

Previous value: -"npm package name, for example lodash or npm:@scope/pkg."New value: +"npm package name, for example lodash or npm:@scope/pkg. To judge a specific VERSION rather than the package as a whole, use evaluate_dependency_change instead."

First observedAug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds the important caveat that a favourable result does not validate an exact package version or compatibility. It also describes what kind of report is returned (lean repository-level recommendation, CVEs, maintenance, etc.), which is useful beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it starts with the trigger condition, then the return value, then exclusions and constraints. Each sentence carries distinct information, and the longer list of returned fields is informative rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the open-world read-only annotations and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers triggers, parameter constraints, and the key version/compatibility limitation. It does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings like verify_dependency_change, but the 'before adoption' framing and version-routing rule are sufficient for an agent to select it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, yet the description still adds meaning by enforcing 'exactly one of repo or package' and clarifying that repo can be owner/repo or a github.com URL. The package parameter description also points users to evaluate_dependency_change for version checks, making parameter choice unambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific action ('check') and resource ('dependency before adoption') and lists concrete triggers: add, upgrade, trust, fork, or deploy. It also distinguishes itself from code navigation and from evaluate_dependency_change for version-specific checks, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It opens with an explicit 'CALL when...' list of adoption scenarios and includes a 'DO NOT use for code navigation' exclusion. It further routes version-specific judgments to evaluate_dependency_change, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All RepoPilot tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?