@lpm-registry/mcp-server

Official

by lpm-dev

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: package management, information retrieval, search, user/owner operations, etc. Overlapping tools like lpm_api_docs, lpm_llm_context, and lpm_package_context are well-differentiated by the specific type of information they provide, and descriptions clearly state when to use each.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'lpm_verb_noun' pattern using lowercase snake_case (e.g., lpm_add, lpm_api_docs, lpm_search_owners). Naming is predictable and makes it easy to infer a tool's function from its name.
Tool Count5/5
17 tools is well-scoped for a package registry server, covering the full workflow: discovery (search, info, docs), installation (add, install, audit), usage (browse_source, package_skills), and administrative actions (user_info, pool_stats). Each tool earns its place.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is comprehensive for LPM registry operations, including search, package metadata, installation methods, source browsing, auditing, documentation, user/owner info, marketplace info, and pool earnings. No obvious gaps for common tasks.
Average 3.9/5 across 17 of 17 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under ISC 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?
No annotations provided; description only states it shows public packages with distribution mode, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication, or data 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?
Two sentences, no redundant information, front-loaded with the core action.
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?
No output schema; description does not explain the return format, or pagination behavior. For a list tool, additional context on results is needed.
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 100% with descriptions for both parameters; description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Describes the tool as listing packages by a specific owner on the LPM registry, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lpm_search or lpm_package_info.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lpm_search_owners, lpm_package_info). No explicit when-not or prerequisites.
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 full burden. It discloses hybrid semantic search but omits critical behavioral details such as whether the operation is read-only, output format, pagination behavior (limit exists but no offset/cursor), or rate limits.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key features, no fluff.
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 11 parameters, no required fields, 7 enums, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks information on combining filters, default behavior, and return format, making it incomplete for a complex search tool.
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 100% with each parameter having a description. The description summarizes filter categories but adds minimal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 it searches LPM packages using natural language or structured filters and mentions hybrid semantic search. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling search tools like lpm_search_owners.
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 this is the primary tool for searching packages but provides no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives (e.g., lpm_package_info for known packages, lpm_search_owners for owner queries) or when not to use it.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Search' implying read-only, but lacks details on case sensitivity, exact vs. fuzzy matching, or what the response contains (e.g., list of owners with IDs). Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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, front-loaded with key action, no redundant words. Efficiently conveys core purpose.
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?
For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but could mention default result behavior or that results are limited. Leaves ambiguity about response format, making it only moderately complete.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (query as name/username, limit as max results). The description adds no additional parameter context, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 verb 'Search', the resource 'users or organizations on the LPM registry', and the method 'by name or username', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like lpm_search (likely for packages) and lpm_user_info (single user details).
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lpm_user_info or lpm_packages_by_owner. The description does not specify search scope, behavior for partial matches, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the outcome (files go to node_modules or Package.swift is edited), but does not mention required permissions, side effects, or reversibility.
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?
Three sentences, no redundant information, and front-loaded with the core action. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral aspects but lacks details on return values, error handling, or real-world constraints. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 100%, and the description repeats the schema's parameter descriptions without adding new meaning. Param details are already clear from the schema.
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 it installs an LPM package as a managed dependency with examples (JS and Swift). It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'lpm_add' tool.
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?
It indicates the tool should be used for libraries, utilities, and SDKs, and requires the LPM CLI. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. 'Get' implies read-only, but no explicit statement about side effects, permissions, or whether it makes network calls. Lacks detail on behavioral traits.
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?
Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with key information (quality score and breakdown). No wasted words, but could be broken into a short definition and details.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details on return structure or format. Enough for simple use, but could be more complete.
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 covers parameter 'name' with clear description. Description adds context about the output (27 checks across categories) but not additional parameter semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3 for 100% 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?
Clear verb 'Get' and resource 'quality score and detailed check breakdown for an LPM package' with specific count (27 checks) and categories (documentation, code, testing, health). Distinguishes from sibling tools like lpm_package_info.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Purpose implies it's used for quality assessment, but no conditions or exclusions are provided.
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 must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the data returned but does not state if auth is required, rate limits exist, or how errors (e.g., missing package) are handled. This lack of detail leaves the agent with incomplete safety information.
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 consists of two short, focused sentences: the first defines purpose, the second gives usage guidance. No words are wasted, and the most critical information is front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema or annotations, the description should cover output structure and error conditions. It lists the types of information returned but not their format or behavior on failure. This is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps.
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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description, making the tool's input self-documenting. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating the parameter format, but the schema alone is sufficient for correct usage.
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 tool retrieves marketplace information including pricing, licensing, seat management, and purchase status. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('marketplace information for an LPM package'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like lpm_package_info.
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?
The description explicitly advises using this tool before recommending a paid package to check cost and access, providing clear context for when it is appropriate. While it doesn't enumerate exclusions or alternatives, the guidance is direct and actionable.
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool returns, lacking details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or side effects.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and content, followed by usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (functions, classes, etc.). Missing details on error behavior or output format, but sufficient for a simple info retrieval tool.
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 100% with descriptions for 'name' and 'version'. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints on values.
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 tool retrieves structured API documentation for LPM packages, listing specific components like functions, classes, interfaces. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lpm_docs by specifying 'structured API documentation'.
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 when to use: 'before installing it'. While it doesn't list exclusions or alternatives, the use case is clearly communicated.
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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It describes the output content (guide with code, patterns, gotchas) but does not specify any behavioral traits such as network requests, permissions needed, response format, or side effects. This is insufficient for full 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 concise with two sentences: the first enumerates content, the second states the use case. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy or fluff. Perfectly sized for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and output content. However, it could be improved by mentioning the output format (e.g., plain text or structured markdown) and any prerequisites or constraints for using the guide.
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?
Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (name format and version default), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, justifying the baseline score of 3.
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 tool retrieves an LLM-optimized usage guide for an LPM package and lists specific content items (purpose, quickStart code, key exports, etc.), distinguishing it from similar tools like lpm_package_context by emphasizing the 'LLM-optimized' nature.
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?
The description includes a clear use case: 'quickly understand how to use a package correctly.' It provides a strong context for when to use, but lacks explicit when-not or mention of alternatives like lpm_package_context, which would improve guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states 'Get metadata' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any additional behaviors such as response size, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Adequate but minimal.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys all necessary information without redundancy. Every part is meaningful.
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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (a list of metadata items), making it complete for a simple lookup tool.
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% (the single parameter 'name' has a clear description in the schema). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score of 3.
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 verb 'Get' and resource 'metadata for an LPM package', listing specific items (versions, description, downloads, AI analysis, compatibility, readme). This differentiates it from siblings like lpm_package_context or lpm_quality_report.
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?
While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or mention of other tools for specific needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the authentication requirement and implies read-only behavior via 'Get information'. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or provide additional behavioral context such as rate limits or caching. Given no annotations, the description partially fills the transparency gap.
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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose with specific details, and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys essential information.
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 simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the function, lists the returned information categories, and notes the authentication requirement. No further detail is necessary given the tool's low complexity.
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?
There are no parameters; the input schema is empty and coverage is 100%. Per calibration guidelines, with 0 parameters the baseline score is 4. No additional parameter information is needed.
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 it retrieves authenticated user information and enumerates specific data categories (organizations, plan tier, pool access, usage limits). The tool name 'lpm_user_info' further reinforces its distinct purpose, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites beyond authentication. For an agent facing multiple sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses extraction (file writing) and CLI requirement, but lacks details on side effects like overwriting existing files or dependency modifications.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for an add tool with 8 parameters and no output schema. Explains general use case and prerequisite, though missing some behavioral context like confirmation prompts (handled by force param in schema).
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 good individual parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is 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?
Clearly states the verb (Add) and resource (LPM package), with 'extracting source files for customization' differentiating it from siblings like lpm_install which is likely a simpler install.
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 lists use cases (UI components, blocks, templates, MCP servers) and prerequisite (LPM CLI installed). Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses required authentication and CLI installation, and lists return contents. Could mention whether read-only or performance impact, but current clarity is high.
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?
Two sentences: first states action and resource, second lists outputs and prerequisites. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with one optional param and no output schema. Description covers purpose, outputs, and prerequisite. Lacks explanation of terms like 'AI security findings' but adequate for typical agents.
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?
Only one parameter (path) with full schema coverage. Description adds 'Project directory' and default behavior, matching the schema. No extra semantic value beyond schema, so baseline 3 is 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 runs a security audit on LPM dependencies, listing specific outputs (behavioral tags, AI security findings, etc.), which differentiates it from sibling tools like lpm_quality_report or lpm_install.
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 mentions prerequisite (LPM CLI installed and authentication) and implies when to use (security audit). Lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but context from sibling tools covers this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the three modes of operation (no params, with `page`, with `query`) but does not disclose output details, rate limits, or authentication needs. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden; it is adequate but not detailed.
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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the purpose and the second detailing parameter behavior. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a documentation tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the core functionality. However, without an output schema, mentioning what the response contains (e.g., text, links) would improve completeness.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds value by explaining how parameters affect behavior (e.g., 'returns that specific page', 'searches page titles'), going beyond the schema alone.
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 tool's purpose ('Search or read LPM documentation') and lists specific topics (setup, CLI commands, publishing, etc.), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like lpm_api_docs or lpm_package_info.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the user asks how to use LPM itself') and describes behavior for each parameter combination, but does not provide exclusions or mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature (getting skills), version resolution behavior, and the scope (author-written). It does not mention error handling or permissions, but given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate.
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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding essential usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is highly concise considering the information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, content of return, usage context, and version behavior. It could clarify the output format but is otherwise complete for most use cases.
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 both parameters having clear descriptions. The tool description mentions version-specific behavior and automatic resolution, which only partially adds to what the schema already says. The description does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 tool gets 'author-written Agent Skills' for an LPM package, listing specific content types (usage patterns, anti-patterns, gotchas, best practices). This differentiates it from sibling tools like lpm_package_info or lpm_docs, especially with the explicit use-case 'when BUILDING with an already-installed package'.
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?
The description explicitly says 'use this when BUILDING with an already-installed package' and mentions that skills are version-specific with automatic resolution from package.json. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the context strongly implies it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations were provided, so the description fully discloses the tool's purpose and outputs (metadata, API docs, usage guide), implying a read-only operation. It lacks mention of rate limits or auth, but these are not critical for a context retrieval tool.
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?
Three sentences, each providing distinct value: what the tool does, when to use it, and when to use an alternative. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and usage context. It could detail the return structure slightly, but the current level is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.
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 fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, 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 states the tool retrieves complete package context (metadata, API docs, usage guide) and explicitly differentiates it from sibling tools like lpm_package_skills by specifying when to use each.
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?
Clearly states to use this before installing to evaluate a package, and advises using local files and lpm_package_skills for already installed packages, providing clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavior: it presents a per-package breakdown of installs, share percentage, and estimated earnings. It also notes authentication needs. No destructive actions are implied, and the behavior is transparent for a read-only tool.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and details the output in the second sentence. Every piece of information is useful and concise.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides complete context: what it returns (earnings estimate, per-package breakdown with installs, share %, earnings) and a requirement (authentication). Nothing essential is missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It adds no redundant information, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate given no parameter documentation burden.
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 tool retrieves pool revenue sharing earnings estimates for the current month with a per-package breakdown. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like lpm_package_info or lpm_search.
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?
The description mentions authentication is required but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is for revenue stats, and the specificity of the purpose provides sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses authentication requirements, subscription/license dependencies for different package types, and advises on minimizing requests. No contradictions with annotations.
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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a bold 'LAST RESORT' emphasis, then presents conditions, authentication details, and a usage tip. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, authentication, and optimization. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100% and the description adds strategic context (e.g., using empty string for all files) that the schema lacks. However, the param descriptions in the schema already explain the fields adequately.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: browsing source code of an LPM package remotely, and emphasizes it is a 'last resort' when installation is not possible. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like lpm_add and lpm_install.
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?
The description provides clear when-to-use guidance ('only use this when you cannot install the package') and specifies alternatives ('prefer lpm_add or lpm_install'). It also offers tips for efficient usage (fetch directory paths).
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lpm-dev/mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lpm-dev/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/lpm-dev/mcp-server'

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