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 carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read', indicating a non-destructive operation, which is critical context. However, it does not disclose other potential behavioral traits like network dependence, rate limits, or whether data is cached, but the read-only nature is well established.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the return fields in a colon-separated list. It is compact and avoid unnecessary words, though slightly long due to the list.
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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields, which is helpful. However, it does not explain how to specify the registry parameter or handle error cases, and it omits any prerequisites or conditions. Still, it is fairly complete for a read-only status tool.
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 description covers only the 'name' parameter. The 'registry' parameter has no schema description, and the tool description does not compensate by clarifying what registry values are valid or how to reference them. This leaves an important gap for agents to correctly invoke the tool.
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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'one open-source package', clearly stating the scope and the data points covered (downloads, OpenSSF scorecard, advisory count, license, archived status, last push). This distinguishes it from more focused sibling tools like check_eol or typosquat_check.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is a general status snapshot, but it does not mention when to prefer it over focused tools or any exclusions such as specific registries or package types.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct query type: package status, stack review, provider incidents, model pricing, watchlist changes, etc. Even similar-sounding tools like check_package and check_stack are clearly differentiated by granularity (single package vs. whole manifest). The descriptions further remove ambiguity.
All names use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are imperative verb_noun (check_package, find_model, watch_add) while many are noun phrases (advisory_severity, provider_incidents, runtime_deadlines). This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun style, so there is noticeable inconsistency.
At 31 tools, the count exceeds the 'too many' threshold (25+). While the domain is broad, the agent must navigate a large surface with many similarly scoped utilities, making selection harder. A more consolidated set (e.g., grouping related readings) would improve appropriateness.
The tool surface covers a wide range of supply-chain intelligence: package advisories, provider status, model pricing, runtime EOL, and watchlist changes. The only notable gap is lifecycle management for the private watchlist (e.g., no watch_remove or watch_list), but the overall coverage is strong.