Check if npm packages are deprecated. Identify deprecated packages quickly to avoid using unsupported dependencies.
Check if packages are deprecated
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packages | Yes | List of package names to check for deprecation | |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not explain caching behavior, network dependency, or any side effects, missing an opportunity to add value.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that captures the core purpose without waste. Could include more context, but it is not overly terse.
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 the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't mention what the return value looks like or how results are structured, which would help with tool selection.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to compensate. However, it adds nothing beyond the schema, so score is at baseline 3.
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 'Check if packages are deprecated' clearly states the action (check) and the resource (npm packages' deprecation status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like npmVersions and npmLatest, which focus on different attributes.
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 the many sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.