Read the current standing of one open-source package: downloads with the window they cover, OpenSSF scorecard, advisory count, licence, whether the repository is archived, and when it was last pushed to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name as the registry spells it. | |
| registry | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explicitly labels the operation as 'Read' and specifies the return fields, which is good. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or registry/package existence behavior, and does not mention any side effects (though read-only intent is clear).
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists data points in a structured list. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 covers the return data comprehensively for a read-only snapshot tool, but it omits parameter semantics for 'registry' and error case behavior. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, some gaps remain, though the core purpose is adequately specified.
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' but not 'registry' (50% coverage). The description does not explain what registry values are acceptable or provide examples, leaving the agent to guess. It neither reinforces nor adds meaning to the parameters beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool reads the current standing of one open-source package and enumerates specific data points (downloads, scorecard, advisories, licence, archived status, last push). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on a single aspect (e.g., advisory_severity, package_weight_history).
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 implies use when a snapshot of overall package health is needed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. The context is unambiguous—'current standing'—yet no when-not guidance is provided.
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.