Check whether an npm or PyPI package is safe to install. Costs $0.005 USDC via x402 per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Exact package name to check for safety before installing | |
| ecosystem | Yes | Package ecosystem to check |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose all behaviors. It mentions cost but fails to specify the return format (e.g., boolean, string) or what 'safe' means, leaving a critical gap for agent decision-making.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence with additional cost info, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite simple tool with 2 params, lack of output schema means description should explain return values. Missing return format and definition of 'safe' makes it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; cost is extra but not param-related.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'Check' and resource 'package safety' with specific ecosystems 'npm or PyPI'. No siblings to distinguish, so purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage before installing npm/pypi packages, and mentions cost. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but context is clear given no sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity or potential for misselection between different tools.
With a single tool, naming is trivially consistent. The name 'check_package_safety' follows a clear verb_noun pattern.
A single tool is borderline for the server's purpose of checking npm and PyPI package safety. While it covers the basic need, the surface feels thin and could benefit from additional tools like separate checks per ecosystem or advanced reporting.
The tool performs its stated function of checking package safety. Minor gaps might include lack of detailed vulnerability information or batch checking, but for a single-purpose query tool, the coverage is largely adequate.