latest_versionMost recent released version of a package.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Package id | |
| prerelease | No | Allow prerelease (default false) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Package identifier | |
| latest_version | Yes | Latest version string, or null if not found | |
| total_versions | Yes | Total number of published versions |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "Newtonsoft.Json"
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "xunit",
+ "prerelease": true
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Latest version information for a package",
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Package identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "latest_version": {
+ "description": "Latest version string, or null if not found",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "total_versions": {
+ "description": "Total number of published versions",
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "latest_version",
+ "total_versions"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., whether the result is cached, what happens if no version exists). Given strong annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 extremely concise (6 words) and placed at the start. No superfluous information. Every word earns its place for this simple tool.
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 tool with a schema and output schema (present), the description is sufficient. It does not explain the behavior of the 'prerelease' parameter's effect on 'released', but the schema covers that. A score of 4 reflects adequate coverage given the available structured info.
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 the schema already defines both parameters (id and prerelease). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is justified.
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: retrieving the most recent released version of a package. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_versions' (which lists all versions) and 'get_package' (which gets package details). However, it could be more explicit about the action verb ('get' or 'retrieve').
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that it is suitable when only the latest version is needed, while 'list_versions' should be used to enumerate all versions. This omission reduces clarity for an AI agent selecting among siblings.
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 are near-identical: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly the same function, ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with a different response mode, and polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edge_tracker/polymarket_fill_risk all overlap on prediction-market edge detection. search vs search_within vs discover_tools also blur discovery boundaries. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without reading every long description.
All names are snake_case and individually readable, so there's no chaotic style mixing. However, the pattern is inconsistent: bare verbs (search, recall, forget, subscribe), verb_noun (get_package, resolve_entity, scan_dependency), noun phrases (latest_version, recent_alerts), and compound prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). The server is named 'Nuget' but the vast majority of tools carry pipeworx_ or polymarket_ prefixes, making the namespace feel like a grab-bag.
35 tools is far too many for a server ostensibly named 'Nuget' — only ~5 tools relate to NuGet package lookup (search, get_package, list_versions, latest_version, scan_dependency), and even scan_dependency is npm-only. The remaining ~30 tools belong to an unrelated Pipeworx research/markets/memory platform. The count is inflated by redundant variants (ask_pipeworx trio, six polymarket tools) rather than distinct functionality.
Judged by the server's stated purpose (NuGet), the surface is thin and has dead ends: search and version metadata are covered, but there's no package owner/publisher info, no readme/description body fetch, no download stats beyond totals, and scan_dependency targets the wrong ecosystem (npm). Judged by the actual dominant domain (Pipeworx), coverage is excessive and sprawling. The tool set fails to deliver a coherent, complete surface for either apparent purpose.