Global Executables

Get an executable record

get_executable

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the canonical provider record for an exact indexed command name to inspect package, ecosystem, source, version, and provenance from a fixed snapshot.

Instructions

Return the canonical provider record for one exact indexed command name.

    Use this to inspect package, ecosystem, source, version, and provenance; use check_executable
    for collision decisions, and do not treat a null record as availability. name is not
    normalized; scope applies AND filters to providers before deciding whether record is null, so
    a known command can disappear when no provider matches. The tool reads one fixed snapshot and
    performs no live lookup; interpret null with coverage_scope.

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, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: it reads one fixed snapshot with no live lookup, scope filters are ANDed over providers before null is decided, and null must be interpreted together with coverage_scope. That is real context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

The record/snapshot behavior is front-loaded, and every clause carries information (routing, normalization, AND-filtering, null semantics). It is a dense, run-on paragraph rather than a cleanly broken structure, which costs a point but wastes no words.

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?

For a single-record read with an output schema already documenting the return shape, the description supplies everything the agent still needs: exact-match semantics, snapshot vs live lookup, and how null relates to coverage_scope.

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; the description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema by noting that 'name is not normalized' and by explaining that scope acts as an AND filter applied before the null determination, which the schema only describes as 'all supplied key-value pairs must match'.

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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Return the canonical provider record for one exact indexed command name.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_executable, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('inspect package, ecosystem, source, version, and provenance'), explicit alternative ('use check_executable for collision decisions'), and an explicit exclusion ('do not treat a null record as availability'). Both the alternative tool and the interpretation rule are named.

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

Deploy Server