Deno Land

Dependencies

dependencies

Read-onlyIdempotent

NOT AVAILABLE: the dependency graph came from apiland.deno.dev, which was shut down on 2026-07-20; the registry CDN that replaced it publishes no dependency data. Returns empty_reason: "upstream_removed" with the module's source repository, so you can read its deps at source. Use version for the file listing and repo pointer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`version`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dependencies`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedMay 24, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "name": "fresh",
+    "version": "1.4.0"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "dependencies": {
+      "oneOf": [
+        {
+          "description": "Dependency map from version metadata",
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        {
+          "description": "No dependencies found",
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "dependencies"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses the critical behavioral trait: the upstream dependency data source has been shut down, so the tool will not return actual dependency data. It also specifies the exact returned `empty_reason` and the workaround using the source repository. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only indicate read-only and idempotent behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the critical 'NOT AVAILABLE' signal, followed by the reason, the behavioral result, and the routing alternative. The upstream history is slightly detailed, but it justifies the behavior without being bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool whose data source is gone, the description tells the agent exactly what will happen, what field to expect, and where to go instead. Combined with the output schema and read-only annotations, there is no missing operational context needed to call this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what `name` and `version` mean or how they interact. The example in the schema ('fresh', '1.4.0') provides some clue, but the description itself adds no parameter-level guidance, leaving a noticeable gap for an agent selecting values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies this tool as the dependency-graph tool and states its current behavior: it returns `empty_reason: "upstream_removed"` along with the source repository pointer. It distinguishes itself from the `version` sibling by telling the agent what this tool is not for. It could be stronger with an explicit verb like 'list dependencies,' but the intent is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit routing advice: 'Use version for the file listing and repo pointer' and tells the agent to read deps from the source repository. It doesn't fully enumerate when to choose this tool over other siblings like `scan_dependency`, but the current unavailability is clearly stated so an agent knows what to expect.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Deno Land tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.