NPM Sentinel MCP

npmQuality

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess NPM package quality by analyzing key metrics to identify reliable dependencies and avoid poorly maintained packages.

Instructions

Analyze package quality metrics

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": {
      "packages": "<packages>"
    },
    "name": "npmQuality"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`packages`	Yes	List of package names to analyze
`ignoreCache`	No	Force a fresh lookup, ignoring the cache

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	No
`results`	No
`summary`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.24.0Jul 28, 2026
Removedv1.23.0Jul 25, 2026
Changed2 schema fields changedv1.20.0Jul 13, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / ignoreCache
```
Added value: +{
+  "description": "Force a fresh lookup, ignoring the cache",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2025

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds no extra behavioral context such as caching behavior, rate limits, or return value structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is a single short sentence, making it concise but lacking structure. It does not front-load key details or earn its place fully.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema and full schema coverage, the description does not explain what metrics are analyzed, how caching works, or how to interpret results. Incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%; both parameters are documented in the schema. Description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states 'Analyze package quality metrics' which is clear but vague. It does not specify which quality metrics are analyzed or distinguish from sibling tools like npmScore or npmMaintenance.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.