get_releaseGet details for a specific version (release) of a Hex.pm package (Elixir/Erlang mix package): dependency requirements, docs availability, publisher, and downloads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name, e.g. "phoenix". | |
| version | Yes | Version string, e.g. "1.7.0". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds the set of returned fields, which is useful but does not disclose deeper behavioral traits such as response shape, pagination, availability behavior, or any external dependencies. It neither contradicts the annotations nor goes substantially beyond them.
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 one compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key output categories without filler. Every word earns its place and the reader immediately understands the tool's purpose.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with safety covered by annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete: it states the inputs, the target resource, and the expected return contents. There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the relevant detail fields.
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 coverage is 100%: both 'name' and 'version' already have clear descriptions and examples. The description simply reinforces that these identify a specific version but adds no new meaning about parameter constraints, defaults, or formatting beyond what the schema states. The baseline score of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('a specific version/release of a Hex.pm package'), and the included detail categories: dependency requirements, docs availability, publisher, and downloads. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_package or list_releases, which target package-level or list-level data.
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 this tool is for retrieving details about one known package version, which is a clear use case, but it never explicitly says when to choose get_release over alternatives such as get_package or list_releases. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the phrase 'specific version.'
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.
Several tools occupy overlapping question-answering territory: ask_pipeworx_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route the same data catalog and differ mainly in output guarantees. The six Polymarket tools also split edge detection, arbitrage, and fill-risk in ways that are easy for an agent to conflate. Clear exceptions like the memory and subscription trios keep it from a 1.
Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and most follow a readable verb-first or domain-prefixed pattern (get_package, list_releases, scan_dependency, ask_pipeworx_*). The Polymarket family uses noun phrases after a prefix (polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk) and a few names are noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes), which is a minor inconsistency rather than chaos.
35 tools is well beyond the comfortable 3-15 range and even above the 16-25 heavy range. The broad Pipeworx data scope justifies some expansion, but identical ask_pipeworx_beta, six overlapping Polymarket tools, and unrelated utility families (Hex.pm, AI visibility, memory, llms.txt) suggest bloat rather than deliberate scoping.
Within its main data-access purpose, the surface is unusually complete: query (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification (ask_pipeworx_grounded/validate_claim), deep research, entity resolution/profiling, comparison, change feeds, and search-within are all present, and memory/subscription subdomains have full CRUD. There are minor gaps for the package side (no docs/dependents) and the hodgepodge of domains makes a single 'complete' surface hard to define, but no workflow hits a hard dead end.