SiteCheck Web Intel

CRAN R package metadata: name, version, title, description

search_cran_r_packages

Read-only

CRAN R package metadata (crandb JSON mirror of CRAN, public, no key): name, version, title, description, license, maintainer, publication date, dependencies and CRAN page link. Unknown packages return 404. 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": "search_cran_r_packages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Exact CRAN package name, e.g. ggplot2

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`name`	No
`title`	No
`source`	No
`depends`	No
`license`	No
`version`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`published`	No
`maintainer`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that the source is public and keyless, that missing packages produce a 404, and — critically — the cost model: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 across Base, Solana, or Arc, with failures not charged. Cost and error semantics are exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Purpose and data source are front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by the field list, error behavior, and pricing. Two sentences, no filler. The field enumeration is long but genuinely informative rather than decorative.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers what is needed: data source, exact-match semantics, 404 behavior, and the paid-call model. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 'name' parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example (ggplot2). The description adds only the implicit 'exact match' nuance via the 404 note, so the baseline 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 names a specific resource (CRAN R package metadata via the crandb JSON mirror) and enumerates exactly what fields come back (name, version, title, description, license, maintainer, date, dependencies, CRAN link). That is enough to separate it from the many sibling search_* tools, which mostly cover news, academic papers, and rankings rather than R package registry data.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Unknown packages return 404' hints at exact-name lookup rather than fuzzy search, and the schema states 'Exact CRAN package name'. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over a sibling, nor any note about prerequisites beyond the payment mention. Adequate but requires inference.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel 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?