Retrieve the current maintainers and their publish history for any npm package by providing its name. Use this to audit package ownership and contributor activity.
Get current maintainers and their publish history for a package.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral scope by specifying 'current maintainers' and 'publish history', clarifying exactly what data is returned. It does not disclose pagination or auth details, but these are minor given the simple read-only nature.
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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description sufficiently states the outputs (maintainers and publish history). No output schema exists, but the description covers expected content. It is contextually complete within the sibling tool ecosystem.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name' with description 'Package name'. The description does not add extra parameter-level details, but does reinforce the package context by mentioning 'for a package'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current maintainers and their publish history' for a package. It distinguishes from mutating sibling tools like npm_owner_add/remove by focusing on retrieval. The resource is specific and non-tautological.
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?
Usage context is implied (when you need maintainer info for a package), but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does not mention that the package 'name' parameter is required, which is already in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.