Checks npm registry settings, verifies connectivity, and optionally validates authentication status to ensure proper configuration.
Verify npm registry configuration and accessibility
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check_auth | No | Check authentication status with the registry | |
| registry_url | No | Specific registry URL to check (optional, uses configured registry) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Verify' implies a read-only check, but it doesn't explain whether network calls are made, whether auth status is checked (despite the check_auth parameter), what the return format is, or what 'accessibility' means operationally. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.
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, focused sentence with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a simple verification tool.
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?
The description is too sparse to fully equip an agent. It doesn't explain what 'verify' entails (e.g., does it return a boolean, a report, or throw errors?), what happens when registry_url is provided, or how check_auth affects behavior. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover these details but does not.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for both check_auth and registry_url, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters, but the schema already explains their purpose adequately.
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 verb 'verify' with the resource 'npm registry configuration and accessibility' clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_npmrc_config and check_npm_global_config by focusing on registry-level verification rather than specific config files, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as check_npmrc_config or check_npm_global_config. It states only what it does, not when it is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer the context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.