projectFetch deps.dev project metadata for a GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket repository (e.g. project_key="facebook/react"), returning scorecard scores, version count, and linked package references.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_key | Yes | Plain "owner/repo", e.g. "facebook/react" — do not URL-encode it. | |
| project_type | Yes | github | gitlab | bitbucket |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / project_key / descriptionPrevious value: -"e.g. \"facebook/react\""New value: +"Plain \"owner/repo\", e.g. \"facebook/react\" — do not URL-encode it."Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "project_key": "facebook/react",
+ "project_type": "github"
+ },
+ {
+ "project_key": "gitlab-org/gitlab",
+ "project_type": "gitlab"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Project metadata from deps.dev API",
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the data source (deps.dev) and returned data categories, but does not cover auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior; return details are also partly redundant because an output schema exists.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with an inline example and clear return summary. Every clause contributes useful information without filler.
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 two-parameter, read-only metadata fetch with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides enough context: source, accepted repository hosts, example input, and what is returned.
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 100%, so parameter meaning is already fully documented. The description repeats an example project_key value and the accepted project types, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema baseline.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: fetching deps.dev project metadata for a repository. It names the accepted hosting providers and clarifies the return content, distinguishing it from sibling package/version/dependency 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 explains what the tool fetches but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like dependencies, package, version, or scan_dependency. Usage is only implied by the project-level metadata scope.
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.