Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

devstack-mcp

by io.github.IsaiahDupree
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get normalized package details

get_package
Read-onlyIdempotent

Full normalized details for one package by registry + name, in a single unified Package shape across npm, PyPI, Docker Hub, and the VS Code Marketplace. name handles scoped npm ids (e.g. @types/node), Docker namespaces (e.g. library/nginx or a bare nginx for official images), and VS Code publisher.extension ids. With registry=all the request fans out to every registry in parallel and returns a packages array (missing registries are silently dropped); otherwise a single package is returned.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "registry": "<registry>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPackage name / id. Supports scoped npm ids (@scope/pkg), Docker namespaces (ns/name or a bare name for official images), and VS Code publisher.extension ids.
registryYesTarget registry. "all" fans out to every registry and merges results.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses valuable behaviors: parallel fan-out with registry=all, returning an array vs. a single package, and silently dropping missing registries. It also describes the unified Package shape across registries, giving the agent a clear model of what will happen. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with a front-loaded clear purpose. Every sentence adds essential context: unified shape, name format handling, and behavior of registry=all. No filler or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (multi-registry, variable output shape) and no output schema, the description explains the return shape for both modes (single vs. array), the unified shape, and edge cases (missing registries dropped). It covers name formats for all registries, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Input schema covers both parameters 100%, including name format details and registry enum. The description largely restates this information with examples but adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema. Behavioral notes like 'missing registries are silently dropped' relate to output, not parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear, specific purpose: 'Full normalized details for one package by registry + name' with a unified Package shape. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering multiple registries and a unified output shape, so the agent knows exactly what this tool provides versus alternatives like get_downloads or get_versions.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly implies usage for retrieving normalized package details across registries, with explicit notes on the registry parameter behavior. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of X', but the context is unambiguous and differentiates from siblings. A 4 is appropriate because exclusions or when-not-to-use are not spelled out.

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

All devstack-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources