get_module_infoMetadata for a specific version (resolved version, commit time, origin).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | Yes | Semver-ish version (e.g. "v1.9.1") | |
| module_path | Yes | Module import path |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time | No | Commit/release timestamp | |
| Version | No | Resolved version identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "module_path": "github.com/gin-gonic/gin",
+ "version": "v1.9.1"
+ },
+ {
+ "module_path": "golang.org/x/net",
+ "version": "v0.17.0"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "Time": {
+ "description": "Commit/release timestamp",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "Version": {
+ "description": "Resolved version identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds specifics about the metadata fields returned, complementing annotations without contradiction.
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?
Single sentence front-loaded with key purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys the tool's function.
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?
With 2 well-documented params, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is largely complete. Could mention handling of invalid versions but openWorldHint implies flexibility.
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% so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., version semver-ish, module path).
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?
Description clearly states it returns metadata (resolved version, commit time, origin) for a specific version, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_versions or get_go_mod.
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 such as list_versions or get_go_mod. The context signals and sibling list indicate related tools but the description offers no comparative usage advice.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all performing similar data lookups. Additionally, many tools focus on prediction markets and arbitrage, which are unrelated to the server's implied Go development domain, causing confusion.
Tool names follow inconsistent conventions: some use snake_case (e.g., 'latest_version', 'list_versions'), some use underscores in longer names (e.g., 'ai_visibility_check', 'ask_pipeworx_grounded'), and some use colons in descriptions but not in names. This mix reduces predictability.
With 35 tools, the count is high for a server named 'Pkg Go Dev' that only offers a few Go module-related tools (e.g., get_go_mod, list_versions). The majority are unrelated Pipeworx tools, making the scope mismatched and excessive.
The tool set severely lacks coverage for Go development tasks. It only includes basic module lookup tools (version listing, mod retrieval) but misses essential operations like dependency analysis, build commands, or testing. The vast majority of tools cover unrelated domains (prediction markets, company profiles, etc.), leaving the server incomplete for its intended purpose.