registry-tools

Official

by NimbleBrainInc

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

registry_resolve

Retrieve full metadata for a package from the mpak registry, including credential requirements and available tools.

Instructions

Get full metadata for a specific package from the mpak registry.

Includes credential requirements and available tools.

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": {
      "package": "<package>"
    },
    "name": "registry_resolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`package`	Yes	Package identifier (e.g., '@nimblebraininc/finnhub').
`version`	No	Specific version. Omit for latest.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context that the metadata includes credential requirements and available tools, but does not disclose error handling, pagination, or any read-only guarantees. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds one notable detail about included metadata. There is no fluff or redundant 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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return structure. It covers the essential purpose and highlights credential requirements/tools. It could mention what happens for unknown packages, but this is a minor gap for a simple lookup tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both 'package' and 'version'. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full metadata for a specific package from the mpak registry.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling registry_search by focusing on a specific package rather than searching.

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 usage when you have a known package identifier and need full metadata, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus registry_search or provide exclusions/alternatives. Some context is present, but no direct guidance.

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

Deploy Server