NPM Sentinel MCP

npmScore

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve consolidated scores for npm packages to evaluate quality, maintenance, and popularity metrics, aiding informed package selection.

Instructions

Get consolidated package score based on quality, maintenance, and popularity metrics

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON 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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the score is based on three metrics, but doesn't disclose caching behavior or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simple read-only nature of the tool with annotations and a likely output schema, the description is sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the output format, but the output schema presumably handles that.

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% and both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'packages' list and 'ignoreCache' flag). Baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it retrieves a consolidated package score based on quality, maintenance, and popularity metrics. It uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'consolidated package score', distinguishing it from sibling tools like npmQuality and npmMaintenance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use (for a quick overall score), but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like npmQuality or npmMaintenance for more granular analysis. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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