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	Default
`repo`	No	Public GitHub repository as owner/repo or a github.com URL.
`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

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, and this description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond them: the verdict is a repo-level recommendation, not a version-level validation, and a favorable result does not guarantee compatibility or an exact package version. This epistemic caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure that protects the agent from misusing the output.

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?

Four-five short sentences with zero filler: trigger conditions first, then outcome, then exclusions, then constraints/caveats. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a rich parameter schema (100% coverage), a full annotation set (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), and an output schema, the description has very little left to explain—it covers scope, triggers, exclusions, and limitations. The agent receives everything necessary to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are well documented with format hints and a sibling pointer for version checks. The description adds only 'Pass exactly one of repo or package,' which restates what the schema's oneOf already enforces, so the marginal value beyond the schema is modest.

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 states a clear verb+resource pair—check a dependency—and gives the concrete use case (add, upgrade, trust, fork, deploy). It enumerates the return content (recommendation, CVEs, license, Scorecard, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings like evaluate_dependency_change and code-navigation tools.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use trigger list (add, upgrade, trust, fork, deploy), includes an explicit exclusion ('DO NOT use for code navigation'), and the package schema parameter names the alternative (evaluate_dependency_change) for version-specific checks. The agent needs no inference to route correctly.

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

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

The set separates into repo-orientation, dependency-checking, and change-risk workflows, but there is real overlap: analyze_repo/get_artifact/plan_repo_task all provide orientation and reading order, and check_dependency vs. evaluate_dependency_change both fire before adding/upgrading a dependency. The descriptions help clarify intent, yet an agent could still struggle to pick the right one in unfamiliar scenarios.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: analyze_repo, check_dependency, compare_repos, evaluate_dependency_change, get_artifact, plan_repo_task, verify_dependency_change. The verbs are descriptive and the pattern makes the lifecycle stages predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well within the ideal range for a server focused on repository and dependency due diligence. Each tool addresses a distinct phase of the workflow—orientation, planning, risk scoring, comparison, evaluation, and verification—without bloating the surface.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core lifecycle well: understanding a repo, planning work, assessing change risk, evaluating dependencies, comparing options, and verifying updates. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for auditing an entire dependency tree or comparing more than two candidates, but these are workable limitations rather than fatal omissions.

Resources

Need Help?