Skip to main content
Glama

Symvanta

by com.symvanta

library

Read-onlyIdempotent

Library catalog lookups. Ops:

  • packages: list indexed npm packages (specifier, ecosystem, owner/name, indexed-at, sha). Tenant-scoped, no projectId.

  • version: one package's resolved version for a project (sha, version, dep type, indexed-at, status indexed|indexing|failed|not_found). "indexing" means a job for that revision is in flight, so retrying later converges; "failed" carries a reason and does not change on its own.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opYespackages: list indexed packages. version: resolve one specifier's indexed version.
limitNoop:packages. Max rows (default 50, max 200).
feedbackNoOptional: report how a previous answer worked out; piggybacks on any call.
projectIdNoProject id from init/list_projects. Omit for the active project.
specifierNoop:version. Package specifier, e.g. "react".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful status behavior for 'version': 'indexing' means a job is in flight and retrying converges, while 'failed' carries a reason and does not change on its own. This is valuable context beyond the annotations, though pagination/auth/rate-limit details are not covered.

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 well organized into a short intro plus a bulleted list of ops, with status semantics attached to the relevant op. It is dense but each sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the two invocation modes easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the fields returned by each op and defining the status enum values. It is reasonably complete for a read-only catalog tool, though it could add more detail about overall response shape or error behavior.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds parameter-relevant meaning: it states that 'packages' takes no projectId, and it frames 'version' as resolving for a project, clarifying the role of projectId and specifier. These details go beyond what the schema states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Library catalog lookups' and names two concrete operations: listing indexed npm packages and resolving a package version for a project. It is specific about resources and scope, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like quick_lookup or source, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The op descriptions give useful context: 'packages' is tenant-scoped with no projectId, while 'version' resolves one package for a project. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the agent must infer usage from the op descriptions.

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

All Symvanta 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.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools generally target distinct operations—repository attachment, symbol resolution, graph traversal, source access, indexing health—and the detailed routing notes reduce ambiguity. A few pairs still overlap in intent (quick_lookup vs locate symbol, context vs ask_codebase), so it is not perfectly unambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but the set mixes verb_noun patterns like add_repository and list_projects with single-word nouns/verbs like context, history, map, relate, and source, plus one acronym (adr). There is no predictable convention across the full surface, though individual names are clear.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the high end for a single MCP server and falls in the 'feels heavy' range. The breadth is justified by the code-intelligence/query domain, but the selection surface is large for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The code indexing, search, graph query, source access, history, ADR, test lookup, and scope estimation needs are well covered. Minor gaps remain—no detach/remove repository, no ADR content editing, and source access is gated by an add-on—but these are workable.

Resources