Package Intel MCP

Package Health

package_health

Read-onlyIdempotent

A composite trust/health check for a package an agent is considering: latest-release recency, deprecation status, license present, maintainer count, dependency count, and any known security advisories (via deps.dev). Returns a summary an agent can act on. Ecosystems: npm, pypi, cargo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Exact package name as published in that registry, e.g. express for npm, requests for pypi, serde for cargo.
`ecosystem`	Yes	Package registry to look in. One of: npm, pypi, cargo.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`license`	No
`verdict`	No
`concerns`	No
`deprecated`	No
`provenance`	No	Where this answer came from. served_at is when Datakoot answered (UTC); upstream lists the official sources consulted. Datakoot may serve a briefly cached copy, so the source's own observation can be older than served_at.
`repository`	No
`has_license`	No
`maintainers`	No
`advisory_ids`	No
`last_release`	No
`latest_version`	No
`known_advisories`	No
`days_since_release`	No
`actively_maintained`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 8, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / provenance

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Where this answer came from. served_at is when Datakoot answered (UTC); upstream lists the official sources consulted. Datakoot may serve a briefly cached copy, so the source's own observation can be older than served_at.",
+  "properties": {
+    "may_be_cached": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "publisher": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "served_at": {
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "upstream": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "actively_maintained": {},
+    "advisory_ids": {},
+    "concerns": {},
+    "days_since_release": {},
+    "deprecated": {},
+    "has_license": {},
+    "known_advisories": {},
+    "last_release": {},
+    "latest_version": {},
+    "license": {},
+    "maintainers": {},
+    "repository": {},
+    "verdict": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the specific signals aggregated, the upstream data source (deps.dev), and that the result is an actionable summary. It stops short of noting latency/cost of a multi-source composite call.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the checklist of signals. The closing 'Returns a summary an agent can act on' is slightly filler and contributes little given an output schema exists.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it covers scope, signals checked, source, and supported ecosystems. Only minor operational details (composite-call latency, no auth/rate-limit notes) are absent, which is low-stakes for a read-only public lookup.

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 description coverage is 100% with only two parameters, and the schema already documents both the exact-name convention and the ecosystem enum. The description's ecosystem list ('npm, pypi, cargo') merely repeats the enum, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (package) and verb-like scope (composite trust/health check), then enumerates exactly what is checked: recency, deprecation, license, maintainers, dependency count, advisories. The 'composite' framing and the six-signal list distinguish it from the single-facet siblings such as package_dependencies and package_info.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'A composite trust/health check for a package an agent is considering' gives a clear context for use (pre-adoption vetting). It does not, however, name any sibling alternative or state when a narrower tool like package_info or package_dependencies should be preferred instead.

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

All Package Intel MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.