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 — a proxied Gravatar image (null if no email is on record). 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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive), but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it discloses the upstream data source (registry.npmjs.org /-/v1/search), the absence of a dedicated maintainer-list endpoint, the revoke-vs-current distinction in currentlyMaintainsCount, and the null case for avatarUrl. It stops short of describing pagination or result caps on the search index, which would matter for completeness.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and the sibling disambiguation in the first two sentences, which is the right ordering. It is dense and long, with several parenthetical asides that cost readability, but no sentence is truly wasted.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, the data source, caveats, and when to prefer a sibling. Return-value detail is present but not required, so nothing is missing.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented (exact username, not email/package/scope). The description adds nothing beyond "Given an npm username," so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (returns packages and aggregates for an npm maintainer) and explicitly distinguishes itself from check_maintainer_blast_radius, which it names. An agent can tell this is a profile/info lookup, not a security scan, without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance ("does NOT run the publish-cluster / compromised-account detection... use that tool instead") and a concrete when-to-use trigger via its pairing with check_maintainer_changes. It routes the agent among siblings rather than leaving selection to inference.

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
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