moduledeno.land/x module summary from the registry CDN: latest version, every published version, and the import URL. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Module name as it appears in deno.land/x, e.g. "oak". |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"Module name as it appears in deno.land/x, e.g. \"oak\"."Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "name": "std"
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "fresh"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Module metadata and latest version information from deno.land/x registry",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful context beyond that. 'Keyless' addresses auth requirements and 'from the registry CDN' identifies the source and retrieval path. There is no contradiction with the 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?
Two brief clauses, front-loaded with the main output list and ending with the auth note. Every word contributes; there is no repetition of schema or annotation details.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description sufficiently covers source, auth, and returned data. Nothing material is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly; any pagination or error-case detail is minor and not necessary for selection or call construction.
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 already documents the single 'name' parameter at 100% coverage, including an example ('oak'), so the description does not need to explain it further. The description adds no extra format or constraint beyond what the schema provides.
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 resource (deno.land/x module) and the returned information (latest version, every published version, import URL), making it more than a tautology. It lacks an explicit verb like 'fetches' or 'returns', and it does not name overlapping siblings such as 'version' or 'versions', so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. 'Keyless' only signals that no auth is needed, not which sibling tool to choose. With siblings like 'version' and 'versions' that overlap in the 'every published version' output, the absence of alternative routing is a notable gap.
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.