List the indexed Canton/Daml npm packages (sdk_versions registry=npm) optionally filtered by name. Canton-specific.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max packages (default 25). | |
| query | No | Optional substring filter on package name. | |
| offset | No | Skip this many before returning, for paging past the limit. The response states the full count and echoes the offset used. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Skip this many before returning, for paging past the limit. The response states the full count and echoes the offset used.",
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it operates on the npm registry index and is Canton-specific, useful context, but nothing about result ordering or response behavior beyond what the schema states.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the core verb and resource first and the scoping parenthetical after. Nothing is wasteful, though the parenthetical is slightly terse for an unfamiliar reader.
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?
For a read-only list tool with complete schema coverage and annotation-declared safety, the description covers purpose, scope, and filterability. Return values are not described, but there is no output schema and pagination behavior lives in the schema, so little is missing.
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%, so the schema already documents limit, query, and offset (including paging semantics and full count echo). The description only restates that filtering by name is optional, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (indexed Canton/Daml npm packages) with a scoping qualifier (sdk_versions registry=npm) and 'Canton-specific'. This distinguishes it reasonably well from generic version/repo tools, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.
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?
It says the list can be 'optionally filtered by name' but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_current_versions or list_repos. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and scope.
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.