Find watched repositories whose name contains a string, with their current readings. Use it to discover what is covered before calling the other tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It clearly describes the search scope (watched repositories) and that results include 'current readings,' implying a read-only informational operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, or error conditions. These gaps are notable given the absence of annotations.
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 sentences, both concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second gives usage context. 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it searches, and when to use it. It also hints at the result content ('current readings'). It does not explain the return format or limit semantics, but for a straightforward search tool, the information provided is adequate for an agent to use it effectively.
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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates for the 'query' parameter by clarifying it is a substring match against repository names. However, the 'limit' parameter is not explained at all; its default, maximum, or effect on results remains ambiguous. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage.
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's function: 'Find watched repositories whose name contains a string, with their current readings.' It names the resource ('watched repositories'), the operation ('find'), and the matching criterion ('name contains a string'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it is a discovery tool to be used 'before calling the other 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use it to discover what is covered before calling the other tools.' This clearly indicates it is a first-step discovery tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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.