Skip to main content
Glama

lookup

Check whether a GitHub repository of an MCP server, agent framework or skill is still maintained, and see its licence and activity from the daily census.

Instructions

Maintenance status, licence and activity of one GitHub repository from the agent-vitals daily census (MCP servers, agent frameworks, skills).

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": {
      "full_name": "<full_name>"
    },
    "name": "lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
full_nameYesowner/name, e.g. modelcontextprotocol/servers

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that data comes from a daily census rather than live GitHub and identifies the returned fields, but it omits read-only status, behavior when the repository is not found, and any freshness or error-handling details.

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 efficient sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the returned information and then supplies scope and source context, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description provides the key fields and dataset context. However, it does not explain sibling differentiation, failure behavior, or return structure, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the required full_name parameter with an owner/name example. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that the tool operates on one repository, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the returned fields (maintenance status, licence, activity), the resource (one GitHub repository), and the source dataset (agent-vitals daily census). It is specific enough for an agent to understand the operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish this lookup from siblings such as search, summary, or candidates.

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?

The single-repository scope implies a targeted lookup, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not mention the sibling tools or say when an agent should use search, summary, or candidates instead.

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