Pub.dev MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: checking updates, comparing versions, getting documentation changes, retrieving package info, listing versions, and searching packages. The descriptions make it easy to differentiate between tools like 'check_package_updates' (for update status) and 'compare_package_versions' (for version differences).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as 'check_package_updates', 'get_package_info', and 'search_packages'. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate without any deviations in naming conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of interacting with pub.dev packages. Each tool serves a specific function in package management, from discovery to version analysis, without feeling too sparse or overloaded. This count aligns with typical MCP server ranges for focused domains.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core workflows for package discovery, information retrieval, and version analysis effectively. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of tools for publishing packages or managing dependencies, but agents can still perform essential tasks like searching, comparing, and monitoring updates without significant hindrance.
Average 3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 11, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it works—e.g., where it checks for updates (e.g., package registry), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries external sources.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core functionality without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of checking package updates (likely involving external APIs) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like data sources, error handling, or return format, which are crucial for effective tool use.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the format of 'packageName' (e.g., npm, PyPI) or how 'currentVersion' affects the comparison. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('check for updates', 'compare versions') and identifies the resource ('package'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_documentation_changes' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'compare_package_versions' or 'get_package_versions', which appear related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives like 'compare_package_versions' or 'get_package_versions'. It mentions both checking updates and comparing versions but doesn't clarify the context or prerequisites for these operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool will 'show differences', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what types of differences (e.g., code changes, dependency updates, metadata), the format of the output, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('compare') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information concisely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of comparing package versions (which could involve detailed diff outputs) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a summary, detailed changes, or error messages), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like performance or constraints. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent with insufficient context.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting each parameter's purpose. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of package names or version formats. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'compare' and the resource 'two versions of a package', specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_package_info' or 'get_package_versions' by focusing on version differences rather than general info or listing versions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_documentation_changes', which might also involve version comparisons.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives like 'check_package_updates' or 'get_documentation_changes'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing valid package names or version formats, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'detect changes,' implying some analysis or comparison, but doesn't explain how changes are detected (e.g., compared to previous versions, over time), what the output includes, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. For a tool with potential complexity in change detection, this is insufficient.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get documentation content and detect changes for a package.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the two functions (getting content and detecting changes) for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'detect changes' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detect changes' entails, the return format, or how results are presented. For a tool that likely involves analysis and comparison, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (packageName, version, docType). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get documentation content and detect changes for a package.' It specifies the verb ('get' and 'detect changes') and resource ('documentation content'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_package_info' or 'check_package_updates', which might also involve package information retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'check_package_updates' or 'get_package_info', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that versions come 'with their release dates', it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what format the versions are returned in, whether there's pagination, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While it states what the tool retrieves, it doesn't describe the return format, what happens when a package doesn't exist, whether there are authentication requirements, or how the versions are ordered. For a tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description should provide more contextual information about the operation's behavior and results.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('packageName' and 'limit') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to the scoring guidelines, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all available versions of a package'), including the additional detail of 'with their release dates'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_package_info' by focusing specifically on versions rather than general package information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'check_package_updates' or 'compare_package_versions', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. With sibling tools like 'check_package_updates', 'compare_package_versions', and 'get_package_info' available, there's no indication of when this specific version-retrieval tool is appropriate versus those other options. The description simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior beyond the 'page' parameter, or what the search results include (e.g., metadata fields). This leaves gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('search for packages on pub.dev') and adds a useful qualifier ('with filters'). Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with filters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. With schema coverage high, the description meets a baseline but doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations and output 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters ('query', 'sort', 'page') with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'filters', which loosely maps to parameters but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('search for packages') and target resource ('on pub.dev'), with the addition of 'with filters' hinting at the parameter capabilities. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_package_info' (specific package details) or 'compare_package_versions' (comparison), though not explicitly. However, it lacks specificity about what 'packages' entails (e.g., Dart/Flutter packages), keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for broad searches versus using 'get_package_info' for known packages, or how it relates to 'check_package_updates' for monitoring changes. The description implies a general search function but offers no context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the detailed information returns. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, the response format, potential errors, or behavioral constraints. Given the lack of structured data, the description should provide more context about the tool's operation and outputs.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'packageName' parameter adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (like examples of package names or format requirements), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 description clearly states the specific action ('Get detailed information'), target resource ('Dart/Flutter package'), and source ('from pub.dev'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_package_versions' (which focuses on version history) and 'search_packages' (which searches multiple packages).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when detailed package information is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_package_versions' for version-specific data or 'check_package_updates' for update information. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pubdev-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/devqxi/pubdev-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/devqxi/pubdev-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pubdev-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/devqxi/pubdev-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/devqxi/pubdev-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/devqxi/pubdev-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server