Assess a package's health by examining maintenance activity, download trends, security status, deprecation, and documentation quality to determine if it's safe to use.
Assess the health of a package — maintenance activity, download trend, security status, deprecation, and documentation quality.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing the data sources evaluated (e.g., security status, deprecation, documentation quality), which goes beyond the annotation's safety profile and helps the agent anticipate the kind of information the tool gathers.
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 starts with the action verb and succinctly lists the key health dimensions. No redundant filler or repetition exists, achieving excellent conciseness.
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 tool is simple (1 parameter, full schema coverage) and annotations cover safety. The description explains what it assesses across multiple dimensions. A minor gap is the lack of any mention of the output format (e.g., score or report), but this is not critical given the tool's straightforward nature and absence of an output schema.
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?
The single parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema as 'Package name' (100% coverage). The tool description does not add further semantic information about the parameter, so it remains at the baseline 3; the schema carries the entire descriptive burden.
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 uses a specific verb ('Assess') and clearly identifies the resource ('health of a package'). It enumerates concrete dimensions (maintenance activity, download trend, security status, deprecation, documentation quality) that distinguish this holistic health check from sibling tools like npm_audit or npm_downloads, which focus on single aspects.
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 establishes a clear usage context: the tool provides an overall health assessment. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the scope is evident from the listed dimensions. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.