mcp-registry-finder

Format an install command for a registry package

format_install_command

Returns the runnable install or launch command for a given registry type and package identifier, with no network calls.

Instructions

Offline helper: given a package registryType (npm, pypi, oci, nuget, cargo, mcpb) and identifier, return the runnable install/launch command. Does not contact the network.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "registryType": "<registryType>",
      "identifier": "<identifier>"
    },
    "name": "format_install_command"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`version`	No	Optional specific version.
`identifier`	Yes	Package identifier, e.g. '@modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem'.
`runtimeHint`	No	Optional runtime hint (e.g. 'pip' to prefer pip over uvx for pypi).
`registryType`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states no network contact and returns a runnable command. Side effects are absent. Could detail return format but overall sufficient.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence with zero wasted words. 'Offline helper' front-loaded immediately communicates key constraint.

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?

Given simple tool with 4 params and no output schema, description fully covers purpose and key constraint. No missing critical information.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is high (75%) with descriptions for version, identifier, runtimeHint. Description lists registry types again, adding minimal new meaning. Baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool formats an install command from registry type and identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_server_details, list_recent_servers, search_registry) which query or list servers, not format commands.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly states it's an offline helper and does not contact the network, implying use when no network access is needed. Does not provide explicit when-not or alternatives, but sibling differentiation is clear.

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

Deploy Server