Set the required multifactor authentication level for publishing an npm package. Choose none, publish, or automation to enforce 2FA and allow automation tokens to bypass when needed.
Configure 2FA requirement for publishing: 'none' (off), 'publish' (2FA required), 'automation' (2FA required but automation tokens can bypass).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name | |
| level | Yes | MFA level for publish |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation with destructive potential. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of each level, but it does not disclose consequences such as impact on current users or the need for elevated permissions. It provides adequate but not rich behavioral context.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently explains the tool's purpose and all configuration values. No word is wasted, and the clarity remains high.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the critical semantics of the configuration levels. It lacks explicit statements about post-change effects or prerequisites, but annotations mitigate the destructiveness. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
While the schema already includes descriptions for both parameters, the description enriches the 'level' enum by clarifying that 'none' means off, 'publish' requires 2FA, and 'automation' allows automation tokens to bypass. This adds practical meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the tool configures 2FA requirements for publishing and enumerates the three possible levels with brief explanations. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from other npm tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling npm_access_set.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like npm_access_set or how changes affect existing workflows. It only describes the configuration options without contextualizing their appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.