List public packages published by a user or organization on the LPM registry, showing distribution mode.
List packages published by a specific user or organization on the LPM registry. Shows public packages with distribution mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Username or organization slug to list packages for | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (1-50, default 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.