readme
readmeGet the README content for a hex.pm package.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name on hex.pm | |
| version | No | Package version (defaults to latest) |
Hex.pm MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Get the README content' but does not specify the return format, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
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 description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise with no unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, yet the description does not describe the return type (e.g., markdown, HTML). For a simple read tool, it lacks completeness regarding what the agent receives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter schema coverage is 100% (both 'name' and 'version' described in schema), but the description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema. It does not explain how parameters affect behavior.
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 clearly states 'Get the README content for a hex.pm package.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'docs' or 'doc_item'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'docs' or 'doc_item'. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but 'audit' and 'audit_mix_deps' overlap in auditing dependencies, and 'dependencies' vs 'dep_tree' are related. Overall, the toolset is well-differentiated.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names use snake_case consistently, but there is a mix of verb-based (search, compare) and noun-based (health, info) names, plus single-word vs compound names. Minor inconsistency but still predictable.
Tool Count5/5
19 tools cover the Hex.pm ecosystem comprehensively without being overwhelming. Each tool addresses a specific need like searching, documentation, auditing, and dependency analysis.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers major use cases: search, info, versions, documentation, dependencies, audit, health, and comparisons. Missing perhaps a tool for direct package source retrieval, but overall very thorough.