How the published artefact size has moved over time. Returns the readings taken, not a verdict. Requires a key; see https://sighttrue.com/pricing.
| 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 provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses an authentication requirement ('Requires a key') and clarifies the output type ('readings, not a verdict'). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or other side effects, but the nature of a history tool and the mention of a key provide some transparency.
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 extremely concise, with front-loaded information: what it does, what it returns, and an auth hint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 tool is simple with only 2 params and no output schema, but the description covers the core purpose and a key requirement. It lacks details about the reading format, time range, or units, which would be helpful for an agent deciding whether to call it, though the low complexity keeps it acceptable.
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?
Schema coverage is only 50% (name has a description, registry does not). The description does not add any parameter details, leaving the registry field without explicit meaning. The description could have explained the purpose of registry and name in context, but it does not.
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 what the tool does: it shows how published artefact size has moved over time. This is a specific resource (package size) and distinguishes it from verdict-oriented tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.
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 usage: when you want raw readings rather than a verdict, and it notes a key is required. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or when not to use it.
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.