SiteCheck Company Records

Public npm package record from the npm registry: latest

gov_npm_registry

Read-only

Public npm package record from the npm registry: latest version, license, description, homepage, repository and tarball URL. Read-only lookup of one package by exact name; no download counts. Related tools on this server, for a different need: gov_faa_aircraft_registry when you need US FAA aircraft registry record for an N-number: serial; gov_dupont_registry when you need Luxury and exotic cars for sale on duPont REGISTRY: newest. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "gov_npm_registry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Exact npm package name, e.g. lodash or @scope/name (max 214 characters)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`source`	No
`license`	No
`tarball`	No
`homepage`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`repository`	No
`description`	No
`latestVersion`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with them. Beyond that, it adds genuinely useful behavior an agent cannot get from annotations: the cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, failed calls not charged) and the negative scope ('no download counts'). It stops short of stating rate limits, caching, or what happens for a nonexistent package name.

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 core purpose, returned fields and negative scope are front-loaded in one dense sentence, and the pricing sentence earns its place. The middle sentence enumerating two unrelated sibling tools is boilerplate noise that does not help an agent choose this tool and could be cut without any loss.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, returned data, scope limits, and pricing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior (missing package, rate limiting) is unstated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented, including the character limit and scoped-name example. The description's 'exact name' phrasing restates what the schema already says ('Exact npm package name'), so it adds no meaning beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read-only lookup of one package by exact name') and enumerates the returned fields (latest version, license, description, homepage, repository, tarball URL). It also carves out scope with 'no download counts,' so an agent can distinguish this from a registry search or download-stats tool without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear selection conditions: use it for a single package looked up by exact name, and it explicitly notes the absence of download counts, which rules out analytics use cases. The 'related tools ... for a different need' sentence does route the agent away from the named siblings, but those siblings (FAA aircraft registry, duPont luxury cars) are unrelated to npm, so it functions more as a disclaimer than genuine alternative guidance.

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

All SiteCheck Company Records tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?