Advisories broken down by severity rather than counted, with identifiers and dates. Requires a key; see https://sighttrue.com/pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name as the registry spells it. | |
| registry | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses the authentication requirement and mentions output includes identifiers and dates, but it doesn't explain error behavior, rate limits, or the exact nature of the severity breakdown. Basic context is present, but significant behavioral details are missing.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately stating the key requirement. It is concise with no redundant content, though the phrasing 'rather than counted' could be clearer in context.
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?
With no output schema and only partial parameter descriptions, the description doesn't fully convey what a severity breakdown looks like, valid values for 'registry', or the returned object structure. It gives a high-level idea but leaves many operational details undefined.
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?
The schema describes 'name' as 'Package name as the registry spells it' but provides no description for 'registry'. Schema coverage is 50%, and the tool description does not compensate by clarifying either parameter or their relationship. The meaning of 'registry' is left ambiguous.
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?
The description states the tool retrieves advisories broken down by severity, with identifiers and dates, and distinguishes it from a simple count ('rather than counted'). However, the verb is implicit and it doesn't explicitly say 'get' or 'list', so it's clear but not maximally specific.
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?
The description mentions 'Requires a key' as a prerequisite but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like advisory-related checks, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions. The phrase 'rather than counted' hints at a distinction but doesn't provide actionable usage criteria.
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.
Multiple tools overlap significantly: check_package, check_before_install, check_stack, and audit_manifest all inspect dependencies, while check_provider and provider_incidents both return incident data. Descriptions help somewhat, but the boundaries between these tools are unclear and could easily cause misselection.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some start with verbs (check_*, list_*, search_*), others are noun phrases (advisory_severity, domain_risk, provider_incidents), and one is a clause (who_can_publish). The mixed conventions reduce predictability and make it harder to infer tool behavior from the name.
With 31 tools, this is well above the 25-tool threshold for a single server, making the surface feel heavy and difficult to navigate. Even given the broad domain (packages, providers, models, registries), many tools could be consolidated or grouped more tightly.
The server provides extensive read coverage for packages, providers, models, and registries, but there are notable gaps such as no watchlist removal or model comparison, and some tools appear redundant rather than completing a lifecycle. Overall, it is broadly useful but not fully complete for its stated purpose.