Skip to main content
Glama

Repology

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Project

project
Read-onlyIdempotent

All packages (per-repo) for one project name (e.g. "firefox").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNumber of items returned.
itemsYesArray of packages per repository for the project

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "name": "firefox"
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "curl"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of items returned.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "description": "Array of packages per repository for the project",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "downloads": {
+            "description": "Download URLs",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "homepage": {
+            "description": "Project homepage URL",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "licenses": {
+            "description": "List of licenses",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "maintainers": {
+            "description": "List of maintainers",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Project name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "repo": {
+            "description": "Repository name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "description": "Package status (e.g. 'newest', 'outdated')",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "version": {
+            "description": "Package version",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "items",
+    "count"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context, such as 'per-repo' grouping, but does not disclose expected output structure or edge cases. This is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant rephrasing; it earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one parameter), has full annotation coverage for safety, and includes an output schema. The description provides the core purpose and enough context to understand the input. It could add more detail about per-repo grouping, but the presence of an output schema and annotations reduce the need.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema only defines 'name' as a string with examples, providing no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the parameter is a project name and giving a concrete example, making the parameter semantics clear enough for a single-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool returns all packages per-repo for a given project name (e.g., 'firefox'). It identifies the resource (packages) and the lookup key (project name), but lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish from sibling tools like projects_search or repositories.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of related tools such as projects_search or repositories. The description only implies a use case by example, but does not state exclusions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Repology toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources