Global Executables

Assess one executable name

assess_executable

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess freshness, activity, popularity, and collision risk for a single command name after an existence check, revealing snapshot evidence gaps that mean a name is unverified, not safe.

Instructions

Assess freshness, activity, popularity, and collision risk for one command name.

    Use this after an existence check; use assess_executables for several names, and do not use it
    instead of check_executable. scope filters providers before signals are aggregated; release
    age is measured against request time with a 365-day threshold, while usage counts can still
    establish activity. The tool makes no live registry call; unknown or insufficient_evidence
    means missing snapshot evidence, not that the name is safe.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Exact, case-sensitive executable command name, not a package name or filesystem path; must be 1-255 characters without path separators or control characters.
`scope`	No	Optional provider filters: source_type, package_system, distribution_family, distribution, distribution_release, language, registry, or ecosystem. All supplied key-value pairs must match; scoped negative results remain non-exhaustive.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.2Oct 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / name / description

Added value: +"Exact, case-sensitive executable command name, not a package name or filesystem path; must be 1-255 characters without path separators or control characters."

addedInput schema / properties / scope / description

Added value: +"Optional provider filters: source_type, package_system, distribution_family, distribution, distribution_release, language, registry, or ecosystem. All supplied key-value pairs must match; scoped negative results remain non-exhaustive."

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: no live registry call is made, scope filters providers before signals are aggregated, release age uses a 365-day threshold measured against request time, and unknown/insufficient_evidence signals missing snapshot evidence rather than safety. The last point is a critical interpretation caveat that prevents a false 'safe' conclusion.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then result-interpretation caveats — a sensible ordering with no filler. The middle sentence is dense and packs several clauses together, but each clause carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and the description instead covers what an agent cannot get from schema or annotations: the absence of a live registry call and the meaning of unknown/insufficient_evidence. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: scope narrows providers before signal aggregation, and the 365-day age threshold explains how the name/age interaction is evaluated. The usage-count fallback ('usage counts can still establish activity') clarifies how signals combine when age is stale.

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?

States a specific verb (assess) plus the resource (one command name) and enumerates the four dimensions scored (freshness, activity, popularity, collision risk). The word 'one' plus the explicit contrast with the plural sibling assess_executables makes it unambiguous which tool handles a single name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly positions the tool in a workflow ('after an existence check'), names the batch alternative (assess_executables for several names), and states a prohibition ('do not use it instead of check_executable'). When-to-use, when-to-batch, and when-not-to-use are all covered.

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

Deploy Server