Inspect npm global configuration to verify settings and identify potential security issues.
Check global npm configuration settings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| config_key | No | Specific config key to check (optional, returns all if not specified) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only check but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention authentication needs, output format, or error behavior. The optional parameter's 'returns all' detail is in the schema, not the description.
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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though it lacks any structural emphasis or front-loaded key details.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what output to expect, how to interpret results, or any side effects. The single line leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke and process the tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 states a clear verb ('Check') and resource ('global npm configuration settings'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like check_npmrc_config or verify_registry_config, so it lacks explicit differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description provides no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.