list_versionsList all published versions of a Dart/Flutter package on pub.dev, with each version string and its publish date, plus the current latest version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | pub.dev package name, e.g. "http". |
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, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by scoping the operation to 'published versions' on pub.dev and describing the exact output shape, without contradicting any annotation.
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 efficient sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the return payload details are included without unnecessary elaboration.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the input is, what scope is covered, and what the response will contain. Annotations cover the behavioral safety profile, so nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.
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 one parameter, 'name', with clear documentation ('pub.dev package name, e.g. "http"'), giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'all published versions of a Dart/Flutter package on pub.dev.' It also specifies the return contents (version strings, publish dates, current latest version), making it distinct from siblings like get_package or search_packages.
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 should be used when version history is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like get_package or get_package_score may also be relevant for package metadata, and no routing guidance is provided.
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 have clear functional boundaries, but there is meaningful overlap at the top level: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share one routing pipeline, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The six polymarket_* tools also form a dense family where an agent must read long descriptions to distinguish arbitrage scanning from edge detection from fill-risk evaluation.
Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun or domain-prefix conventions, which makes the set much more predictable than its count suggests. Minor deviations exist: ask_pipeworx variants are product-noun phrases, polymarket_edges is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led tool, and pairs like polymarket_edges vs polymarket_edge_tracker are easy to misread.
With 31 tools, this server is above the 25+ threshold and feels overloaded for a single MCP surface. It mixes broad data research, prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and niche utilities like generate_llms_txt, so the set is more like several related servers merged together.
The core workflow is well covered: discovery, single-answer routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, change tracking, subscription lifecycle, and even memory primitives. Missing are minor lifecycle refinements such as updating an existing subscription, and the number of overlapping entry points makes it slightly harder to guarantee the agent will always choose the intended path.