For a container base image: its size, when it was last rebuilt, and whether the OS underneath it is still supported. Requires a key; see https://sighttrue.com/pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses an authentication requirement (a key) and provides a pricing link, which is useful context not present in the schema. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, and there are no annotations to fill this gap.
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 concise, with two sentences covering purpose and authentication. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the first sentence is grammatically awkward ('For a container base image:'), making it slightly less polished than optimal.
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?
The description lists the three key return values and the auth requirement, which is adequate for a simple lookup tool. However, since there is no output schema, it would benefit from mentioning the response format or error conditions, leaving some context missing.
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 has a single 'image' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds that it applies to a 'container base image,' which narrows the parameter's meaning, but it does not provide format examples or constraints such as tag or digest syntax, so the parameter remains underspecified.
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 provides three specific pieces of information for a container base image: size, last rebuild time, and OS support status. This is a specific resource and scope, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'checks.' The combination of these attributes helps distinguish it from siblings, but it does not explicitly name them.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_eol or package_weight_history. It mentions only the requirement for a key and a pricing link, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline.
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.