queryQuery packages/versions (by hash, repo URL, etc).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Query body — see https://docs.deps.dev/api/v3/#query |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": {
+ "hash": "sha256:abc123def456"
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "query": {
+ "repo": {
+ "url": "https://github.com/nodejs/node"
+ }
+ }
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Query results for packages/versions from deps.dev API",
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which convey the safety profile. The description adds that the tool accepts queries by hash or repo URL, but it does not describe behaviors like pagination, result limits, or error handling. This is acceptable given strong annotation coverage, but the description contributes only modestly beyond 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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no superfluous content. It is highly concise and well-structured for quick parsing.
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?
The tool has one parameter with good schema examples, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, it omits details about the breadth of query types ('etc.') and any limitations, making it adequate but not completely self-sufficient.
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 100% coverage with a description and examples for the single 'query' parameter. The tool description adds concrete semantics by specifying query criteria (hash, repo URL, etc.), enriching the abstract 'Query body' from the schema. This elevates the value beyond the schema alone, though the 'etc.' remains vague.
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 states the tool's purpose: querying packages/versions with specific criteria like hash or repo URL. The verb 'query' and resource 'packages/versions' are specific, though the trailing 'etc.' introduces some vagueness and does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'package' or 'dependencies'.
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 implies when to use the tool—when you need to query packages/versions by hash, repo URL, or similar identifiers—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is reasonably clear but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.
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.