package_statsDownload counts (total, monthly, daily) + dependents count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | vendor/package |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| downloads | No | Download statistics | |
| dependents | No | Number of packages depending on this |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool retrieves counts but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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 that is front-loaded and efficient. It earns its place without fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing each metric explicitly).
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 one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return data. It could be improved by stating that it provides historical download statistics, but the output schema likely covers this.
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% with 'name' described as 'vendor/package'. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema; it merely reinforces that the parameter refers to a package. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns download counts and dependents count for a package. It uses a specific verb-resource combination, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_package'.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_package', 'list_versions', or 'scan_dependency'. The context signals list many sibling tools, but the description offers no selection criteria.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx_beta is a literal duplicate of ask_pipeworx, and ai_visibility_check/scans overlap with each other while the many prediction-market and edge tools cover similar ground. The verbose descriptions help somewhat, but an agent would frequently struggle to pick the right tool.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (get_package, list_versions), others noun_verb (ai_visibility_check, bet_research), and several are brand-specific (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) with no uniform verb style. The mixed patterns make it hard to predict tool names.
35 tools is far too many for a server named Packagist: only 4-5 tools relate to the PHP/Composer registry while the vast majority concern Pipeworx data lookups, Polymarket analysis, and memory utilities. The scope is severely mismatched with the server's name and apparent purpose.
For a Packagist registry server, the core read operations (search, get, list versions, stats) are present, but the server is cluttered with unrelated functionality and offers no package management actions. The tool set is not complete for any single, coherent domain, making it feel like two different servers merged into one.