Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentsID Guard

AgentsID Guard

Official
by AgentsID-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

package_info

Fetch package metadata from npm, pip, brew, or apt by name, with access permissions enforced.

Instructions

Get info about a package. Requires package.read.

Tool call template

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "package_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPackage name
managerNoPackage manager

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a permission requirement ('Requires package.read') but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential failure modes, data sources, or any side effects. This is a minimal addition.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded, with two sentences that each add value: the purpose and the permission requirement. It avoids superfluous text, but the brevity leaves some aspects under-specified.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has two parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain what information is returned, but it merely says 'info' without specifying fields, format, or behavior. It also leaves the optional 'manager' parameter unclarified, making the tool incomplete for an agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on 'name' or 'manager' semantics, defaults, or interactions between them.

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 clearly states 'Get info about a package', identifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like package_list and package_install, though 'info' could be more specific about the actual data returned.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of exclusions or prerequisites beyond the permission. The description only states the basic function, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools