Skip to main content
Glama

NPMScan

by com.npmscan
OverviewDiscussions(1)Admin

Get basic profile info for an npm maintainer

get_maintainer_profile
Read-only

Given an npm username, returns every package npm's own maintainer: search index currently returns for that account (registry.npmjs.org's /-/v1/search — the public registry API has no dedicated 'list packages by maintainer' endpoint otherwise), plus precomputed aggregates: currentlyMaintainsCount (still listed as maintainer right now vs. already-revoked), totalWeeklyDownloads and totalDependents summed across every returned package, and avatarUrl — the same Gravatar image npmjs.com's own profile page shows for this account, derived from the email already public in the registry's own maintainer records but served from our own /api/avatar/:hash proxy rather than linking gravatar.com directly (null only if no returned package still lists an email for this exact username). This is a plain info lookup — it does NOT run the publish-cluster / compromised-account detection that check_maintainer_blast_radius does; use that tool instead when the goal is a security read on whether this account's recent activity looks like a takeover, not just a profile summary. Natural pairing with check_maintainer_changes: once that tool names a maintainer on a package, call this with that maintainer's username to see the rest of what they touch. npmscanUrl is this account's profile page on npmscan itself; npmProfileUrl is the account's actual page on npmjs.com, included for verification since that's the authoritative record of the account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
maintainerUsernameYesExact npm username, e.g. "sindresorhus" — as shown at npmjs.com/~username. Not an email address, not a package name or scope.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYes
packagesYes
avatarUrlYes
npmscanUrlYes
npmProfileUrlYes
totalDependentsYes
packagesReturnedYes
resultsTruncatedYes
maintainerUsernameYes
totalPackagesFoundYes
totalWeeklyDownloadsYes
currentlyMaintainsCountYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / npmscanUrl
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "maintainerUsername",
-  "npmProfileUrl",
-  "avatarUrl",
-  "totalPackagesFound",
-  "packagesReturned",
-  "resultsTruncated",
-  "currentlyMaintainsCount",
-  "totalWeeklyDownloads",
-  "totalDependents",
-  "packages",
-  "note"
-]New value: +[
+  "maintainerUsername",
+  "npmscanUrl",
+  "npmProfileUrl",
+  "avatarUrl",
+  "totalPackagesFound",
+  "packagesReturned",
+  "resultsTruncated",
+  "currentlyMaintainsCount",
+  "totalWeeklyDownloads",
+  "totalDependents",
+  "packages",
+  "note"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / avatarUrl
      Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "maintainerUsername",
-  "npmProfileUrl",
-  "totalPackagesFound",
-  "packagesReturned",
-  "resultsTruncated",
-  "currentlyMaintainsCount",
-  "totalWeeklyDownloads",
-  "totalDependents",
-  "packages",
-  "note"
-]New value: +[
+  "maintainerUsername",
+  "npmProfileUrl",
+  "avatarUrl",
+  "totalPackagesFound",
+  "packagesReturned",
+  "resultsTruncated",
+  "currentlyMaintainsCount",
+  "totalWeeklyDownloads",
+  "totalDependents",
+  "packages",
+  "note"
+]
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that it is a plain info lookup, does not run detection, sources data from the public registry API, and explains the avatarUrl null condition and proxy usage. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is long and packed with details, but every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior, source, and limitations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more concise with bullet points or shorter sentences.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on context rather than return values. It explains data sources, aggregates, the proxy, and null behavior, and provides usage context with sibling tools, making it complete for an agent to decide and call 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?

The input schema already provides a thorough description of the maintainerUsername parameter, including example, exclusions, and constraints (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond restating that it takes a username.

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 clearly states the tool's function: given an npm username, it returns packages and precomputed aggregates. It also explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools like check_maintainer_blast_radius and check_maintainer_changes, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for a plain profile summary) and when not (for security detection, directing to check_maintainer_blast_radius). It also describes a natural pairing with check_maintainer_changes, giving clear contextual guidance.

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

All NPMScan toolsInspect
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.

Resources