Retrieve maintainer details for listed NPM packages to assess package ownership and contributor roles.
Get maintainers information for NPM packages
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packages | Yes | List of package names to get maintainers 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description only says 'Get maintainers information' and adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., cache behavior, error handling, or rate limits). With annotations present, the description should go beyond structured data but fails to do so.
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 sentence that states the core purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.
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 largely adequate for a simple read-only tool. However, it lacks any mention of what the returned maintainers information includes, which might be useful for quick understanding without inspecting the output schema.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (packages and ignoreCache) are fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema, resulting in baseline score of 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 'Get maintainers information for NPM packages' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (maintainers information for NPM packages). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like npmVersions, npmLatest, etc., which focus on different aspects of NPM packages.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like npmQuality, npmMaintenance, or other sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.