search_docs
search_docsSearch within a package's documentation by name.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name on hex.pm | |
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| 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
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the basic function without disclosing behavior like return format, error handling, or authentication needs.
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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but does not cover return format or handling of invalid inputs. For a search tool, more detail would be beneficial.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The schema already explains parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches within a package's documentation by name, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'docs'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search' for packages, 'docs' for general docs). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.