Find alternative NPM packages with similar functionality for dependency comparison and substitution.
Find alternative packages with similar functionality
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packages | Yes | List of package names to find alternatives for | |
| ignoreCache | No | Force a fresh lookup, ignoring the cache |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| results | No | ||
| summary | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.24.0v1.23.0v1.20.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / ignoreCacheAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Force a fresh lookup, ignoring the cache",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe read operation) and openWorldHint=true (potential for external lookups). The description does not add behavioral context beyond the schema parameter 'ignoreCache', which hints at caching but is not elaborated. No contradiction with annotations. The description is adequate but adds little extra transparency.
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 sentence, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it might be too terse; a bit more detail could improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness. Still, it earns its place.
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?
Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, but it should at least mention that it returns alternative packages. The current description is vague ('similar functionality'). For a tool with two parameters and no nested objects, more context about the output or success criteria would be helpful.
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 100%, so the schema itself documents both parameters (packages list and ignoreCache boolean). The description adds no additional meaning or usage tips for these parameters. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'alternative packages with similar functionality'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like npmVersions or npmLatest, which focus on different aspects. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., NPM packages) and what 'similar functionality' entails.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like npmCompare or npmSearch. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description solely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.