Look up up to 50 indexed records by exact tool name across package managers to inspect installed packages and verify package metadata.
Return up to 50 indexed records for an exact tool name across package managers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context with the 50-record cap and per-package-manager aggregation, but says nothing about behavior when the name is not found (empty result vs error) or whether duplicates are collapsed.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The record cap and the exactness constraint both land before the agent stops reading.
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?
An output schema and rich annotations remove the need to explain return values or safety, and the 1-param surface is small. What remains missing is the lookup-vs-search distinction against three sibling tools and the not-found behavior, which matters for an agent choosing among four similarly scoped tools.
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 0% and the single 'name' parameter has no description, so the description carries the burden. It does compensate by clarifying that matching is EXACT rather than fuzzy or regex, which is the key semantic an agent needs, but it omits format, case sensitivity, and namespace conventions.
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?
States a specific verb (return indexed records) and resource (tool records across package managers) and adds the 'exact tool name' qualifier that separates it from a fuzzy lookup. It does not name any sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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?
'Exact tool name' implies the use case: look up a tool whose name you already know, rather than browse or search. However, no sibling is named and there is no statement of when to prefer toolbox_search or toolbox_inventory, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.