Packages whose own publisher has withdrawn them and which are still being installed heavily, with the download figure and the publisher’s notice. Requires a key; see https://sighttrue.com/pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose an important requirement: a key is needed, and it indicates what data is returned (download figure and publisher's notice). However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether there are rate limits, or any other behavioral nuances. The key requirement is useful context, but the description could be more transparent about the nature of the data source or any side effects.
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, using a single sentence to convey the core purpose and the key requirement. It is not bloated with unnecessary content. However, it is structured as a sentence fragment (a noun phrase) rather than a clear imperative sentence, which slightly reduces clarity. Still, it is efficiently packed with relevant information.
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 moderate complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description should at least cover the parameter semantics, usage context, and what the tool returns. It partially covers the return data (download figure and publisher's notice) and the key requirement, but it omits any explanation of the 'limit' parameter, lacks guidance on when to use the tool, and does not reference related tools. The description is incomplete for an agent to use the tool confidently.
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 one optional parameter, 'limit', with no description in the schema (coverage 0%). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so the agent has no guidance on what 'limit' controls (e.g., maximum number of results). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameter semantics completely unexplained.
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's purpose clearly: it lists packages that have been withdrawn by their publisher but are still heavily installed, and includes download figures and the publisher's notice. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'model_withdrawn' (which focuses on models) or 'check_package' (which likely checks individual packages). However, the description is a noun phrase rather than an imperative sentence with a specific verb, such as 'List' or 'Retrieve', which would make the purpose more explicit.
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 only usage-related guidance is 'Requires a key; see https://sighttrue.com/pricing', which is a prerequisite rather than a guideline for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any contexts where this tool is preferred, nor does it contrast with sibling tools like 'model_withdrawn' or 'check_package'. There is no indication of when this tool should be selected over others.
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.