Fetch repository statistics for NPM packages to assess active development, issues, and community engagement.
Get repository statistics for NPM packages
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packages | Yes | List of package names to get repository stats 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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it's a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds no behavioral context (e.g., caching behavior via ignoreCache, data freshness, rate limits). It meets the baseline but adds minimal value beyond annotations.
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 directly states the tool's purpose. It avoids fluff and is front-loaded. Slightly more detail would not harm conciseness, but it is already efficient.
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?
The description is minimal but paired with a comprehensive input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema (as per context). The term 'repository statistics' is vague without the output schema, but the presence of the output schema fills the gap. Overall, it is adequate but relies heavily on structured fields.
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% with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'packages' and 'ignoreCache'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 'Get repository statistics for NPM packages' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (repository statistics). It distinguishes from siblings like npmVersions, npmLatest, and npmDeps, which focus on different aspects. However, it could be slightly more specific by mentioning that stats are from GitHub, as indicated in the annotations title.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 18 sibling tools covering various npm queries, the description should hint at scenarios (e.g., when you need star counts, fork info, etc.) to help select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.