How many accounts hold publish rights on a package, as the registry lists them. Answers who can put code on your machine, which is a different question from who writes it. 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses an authentication requirement ('Requires a key') and indicates the data source ('as the registry lists them'), which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns a count or list, or any potential side effects or errors.
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: two sentences, both informative. The first sentence front-loads the core function, the second clarifies semantics and mentions the key requirement. 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?
Without an output schema, the description should clarify the return format, but there is ambiguity: 'How many accounts' suggests a count, while 'who can put code' suggests a list of accounts. It also does not mention potential failure modes or prerequisites beyond the key. However, for a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and context adequately.
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 description coverage is only 50% ('registry' has no description), and the description adds little for 'registry'. It implies 'name' refers to a package name ('on a package') but does not clarify acceptable registry values or format. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented 'registry' parameter.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: counting/list accounts with publish rights on a package. It uses a specific verb ('holds publish rights') and resource ('package'), and distinguishes the concept from authorship ('different question from who writes it'), which helps differentiate from possible 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you need to know who can actually publish code, not who authored it. It also notes a prerequisite ('Requires a key') with a link to pricing. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions beyond the authorship distinction.
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.