Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCPskills

MCPskills

by BeBraveBeKind
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

watch_repo

Monitor any repo or package for trust score changes and receive alerts when the score shifts by ±0.3 points or tier. Requires a paid API key.

Instructions

Start monitoring a repo or package for trust score changes. Alerts when score changes significantly (±0.3 points or tier change). Requires a paid API key.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "watch_repo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesAny of: "owner/repo", GitHub URL, "npm:@scope/package", or Smithery URL
emailYesEmail address for alerts

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.5.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that monitoring is ongoing and alerts are sent on significant changes. It also notes the requirement for a paid API key. Missing details like how to stop monitoring or confirmation behavior, but core behavior is covered.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states the core action, second adds important detail (alert condition) and a requirement. No redundant words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the main purpose and prerequisites but lacks details on post-monitoring behavior (e.g., confirmation, how to manage watches). Without an output schema, the agent might wonder what the tool returns.

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?

100% schema coverage means parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: start monitoring a repo/package for trust score changes. It specifies the alert threshold (±0.3 or tier change), making it distinct from one-time checks like check_trust_score.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description indicates when to use (to get alerts on score changes) and mentions a prerequisite (paid API key). However, it does not explicitly explain when not to use it or list alternatives like check_trust_score for single checks.

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