Look up Node.js package information from NPM registry. Returns latest version, download statistics (weekly/monthly), dependency list, package description, license, and GitHub link. Use for evaluating JavaScript libraries, checking maintenance status, or reviewing package popularity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package_name | Yes | NPM package name exactly as published (e.g. 'express', 'react', 'lodash', '@babel/core') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the specific data fields returned (version, downloads, dependencies, license, GitHub link), which is helpful for an agent deciding whether to use the tool.
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?
The description is concise: two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, output, and usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Given the simple input schema and absence of output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know: what data to expect and when to use it. It does not discuss error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup tool, this is complete enough.
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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed examples for the package_name parameter. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool looks up Node.js package information from the NPM registry, specifies the data returned (latest version, downloads, dependencies, etc.), and provides use cases. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pypi_package and search_arxiv.
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?
The description provides clear use cases ('evaluating JavaScript libraries, checking maintenance status, reviewing package popularity'), implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct data source and operation: GitHub repos, npm packages, PyPI packages, arXiv papers, GitHub search, Google Scholar, and Stack Overflow. Even the two GitHub tools differ in purpose (get specifics vs search). No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: get_* and search_*. The verbs are precise and the nouns clearly indicate the target resource.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a developer toolkit covering package registries, code search, academic resources, and Q&A. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without bloat.
The set covers major developer resources (GitHub, npm, PyPI, arXiv, Google Scholar, Stack Overflow). Missing are tools for other registries (e.g., Maven, Docker Hub) and package search for npm/PyPI (only get by name), but core workflows are well represented.