Skip to main content
Glama

Package Owner

package_owner

Identify which installed Debian package owns a specified file path via dpkg -S to trace package ownership for debugging or security hardening.

Instructions

Which package owns a file (dpkg -S).

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "package_owner"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The 'dpkg -S' reference is genuinely informative, implying a read-only local dpkg database lookup that only works for dpkg-managed files, but the description does not state what happens for unowned files, whether the path must be absolute, or any error behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core operation comes first and the dpkg reference is a compact clarifying gloss. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than padded.

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 tool is simple (one string parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a dpkg-backed lookup the description omits the environment prerequisite and path-format expectation, leaving modest gaps an agent must discover by trial.

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

Parameters2/5

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

There is a single required parameter 'path' with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never clarifies whether the path must be absolute, may be a directory, or accepts a package-relative form; 'a file' hints at file-versus-directory but not path format.

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 a precise, specific operation: given a file, return the package that owns it, reinforced by the parenthetical 'dpkg -S'. This is clearly the inverse of file-listing siblings such as package_files, though the description does not name any sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the semantics: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs reverse attribution (file -> package) rather than enumeration. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. Debian/dpkg-based system), and no named alternative.

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