packages_listList packages in the manifest (npm or pip).
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>",
"manager": "<manager>"
},
"name": "packages_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| manager | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the manifest-scoped context; it says nothing about what is returned (names only? versions? dev vs prod dependencies).
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?
One short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded; there is no padding or redundant restatement of the title.
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?
A simple read tool with full annotation coverage, but the two undocumented parameters and the absence of any return-value hint leave a meaningful gap. An agent knows the tool lists packages but not exactly what 'id' expects or what the list contains.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It ties 'manager' to npm/pip (already an enum) and implies 'id' names a manifest, but never explains what kind of identifier 'id' is (project, environment, or manifest reference).
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (packages) and adds scope: 'in the manifest (npm or pip)'. This distinguishes it from packages_add/packages_remove by name and verb, though it doesn't explicitly call out those siblings.
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 statement of when to use this versus packages_add/packages_remove, or when to pick npm versus pip. The scope ('in the manifest') hints at usage but leaves the agent to infer it from the tool name alone.
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.