npm-dev-mcp

by masamunet

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. For example, get_dev_logs retrieves logs, get_dev_status checks process state, and restart_dev_server restarts the process—each targets a specific action on a specific resource. There is no overlap in functionality that would cause misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as get_dev_logs, restart_dev_server, and scan_project_dirs. All tools use snake_case with descriptive verbs (e.g., get, restart, scan, start, stop), making them predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the count is well-scoped for managing npm development processes and MCP server health. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects like monitoring, control, recovery, and project scanning, without being excessive or insufficient for the domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete lifecycle coverage for npm development and MCP server management. It includes monitoring (get_dev_status, get_health_status), control (start, stop, restart), recovery (auto_recover, recover_from_state), and utilities (scan_project_dirs, get_dev_logs), with no obvious gaps that would cause agent failures.
Average 2.8/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
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
- 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 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'attempt recovery' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't specify what gets recovered, whether it's destructive to current state, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure. The description is too vague to understand the tool's actual behavior beyond the basic concept.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one phrase) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core concept, it lacks necessary detail about what's being recovered. The single sentence doesn't waste words, but fails to provide adequate information for tool selection.
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 recovery tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'saved state' means, what gets recovered, success/failure conditions, or return values. Given the complexity implied by a recovery operation and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context about the operation's scope and outcomes.
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?
With only 1 parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the 'force' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with zero parameters requiring additional explanation, this meets the baseline expectation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '保存された状態から復旧を試行' (Attempt recovery from saved state) is a tautological restatement of the tool name 'recover_from_state'. It doesn't specify what type of recovery (system, data, application) or what 'saved state' refers to. While it includes a verb ('復旧を試行' - attempt recovery), it lacks specificity about the resource or scope being recovered.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 the 8 sibling tools listed (auto_recover, get_dev_logs, etc.). There's no mention of prerequisites, when recovery should be attempted, or what distinguishes this from 'auto_recover'. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool over alternatives.
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 states the tool checks status but doesn't describe what information is returned (e.g., running/stopped, PID, uptime), whether it's a read-only operation, or any side effects. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 phrase ('npm run devプロセスの状態確認') that directly states the purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, though it could be slightly clearer in English for broader accessibility.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status' entails, how the result is formatted, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a status-checking tool in a server with multiple monitoring options, 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. No additional value is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'npm run devプロセスの状態確認' states the purpose (checking the status of the npm run dev process) but is vague about what 'status' means. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_health_status or get_dev_logs, which might provide different types of status information. The Japanese text adds localization but doesn't improve specificity.
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 like get_health_status or get_dev_logs. The description implies usage for checking dev process status but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
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 the three-step sequence (health check → recovery → revalidation), it doesn't describe what constitutes a failed health check, what specific recovery actions are taken, what revalidation entails, whether the operation requires special permissions, or what happens if recovery fails. For an automated recovery tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 extremely concise - a single Japanese sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the operational sequence in parentheses. There's no wasted verbiage, though some might argue it's too brief for a complex automated recovery operation.
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 this is a complex automated recovery tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what constitutes success/failure, what side effects occur, or how it interacts with the MCP server ecosystem. The three-step sequence is mentioned but not elaborated, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly with descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 as executing automatic recovery of MCP servers with a specific sequence (health check → recovery → revalidation). It uses a specific verb ('実行' - execute) and resource ('MCPサーバーの自動復旧' - MCP server automatic recovery). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'recover_from_state' or 'restart_dev_server' which may have overlapping functionality.
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 'recover_from_state', 'restart_dev_server', 'get_health_status', and 'get_dev_status' available, there's no indication of when this automated recovery sequence is preferred over manual recovery options or status checks.
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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'ログ取得' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, how logs are formatted, whether they're real-time or historical, or any rate limits. The description mentions the source but lacks operational context needed for safe invocation.
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 extremely concise - a single Japanese phrase that directly states the tool's function. Every word earns its place with no wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and could not be more efficiently structured given its brevity.
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 format the logs are returned in, whether they include timestamps, error levels, or other metadata. Given the complexity of log retrieval and the lack of structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the return value.
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 well-documented in Japanese. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Since the schema already fully describes 'lines' and 'directory', the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given complete schema coverage.
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 ('ログ取得' - log retrieval) and specifies the source ('npm run dev'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling logging tools (none are listed, but the agent might assume others exist). The description is specific about what logs are being retrieved but lacks differentiation context.
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 'get_dev_status' and 'get_health_status' available, there's no indication whether this tool should be used for monitoring, debugging, or other purposes. No prerequisites, timing, or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
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 states the tool retrieves health status but doesn't describe what that includes (e.g., uptime, resource usage, error counts), whether it's a read-only operation, if it has side effects, or any rate limits. For a health-check tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 in Japanese: 'MCPサーバーのヘルス状態を取得'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place.
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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what health status entails, how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_dev_status', or what the return value looks like. For a health-check tool in a server management context, more context is needed to guide effective 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'detailed' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'detailed' health reports include). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, 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: 'MCPサーバーのヘルス状態を取得' (Get MCP server health status). It specifies the verb '取得' (get) and resource 'ヘルス状態' (health status), making the action clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dev_status' or 'get_dev_logs', which also retrieve status information.
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 'get_dev_status' (which might provide different status information) or 'auto_recover' (which might handle health issues). There's no context about prerequisites, timing, 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, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, or if it affects other processes. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with behavioral gaps, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on outcomes, error handling, or interaction with sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe agent 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 fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 ('restart') and target ('npm run dev process'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_dev_server' or 'stop_dev_server' beyond the restart action, missing explicit sibling distinction.
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 like 'start_dev_server' or 'stop_dev_server'. The description only states what it does, without context for selection among siblings 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions running 'npm run dev' in the background, which implies a long-running process, but doesn't describe what happens if a server is already running, error handling, or output behavior. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
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 in Japanese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes key details like 'バックグラウンドで' (in the background). There's no wasted text, making it appropriately concise for its purpose.
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 tool's complexity (starting a background process) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'npm run dev' entails, how to verify success, or potential side effects. For a tool that initiates a server process, more context on behavior and outcomes 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter 'directory' documented as '実行ディレクトリ（オプション、未指定時は自動検出）'. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 the tool's purpose: 'npm run devをバックグラウンドで開始' (start npm run dev in the background). It specifies the action (start) and resource (npm run dev), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'restart_dev_server' or 'stop_dev_server'. The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.
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 when to choose 'start_dev_server' over 'restart_dev_server' or other siblings, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied from the action, but no explicit guidelines are given.
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. It doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is destructive (likely yes, but not stated), what happens if no process is running, error conditions, 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?
Extremely concise single phrase that communicates the core purpose efficiently. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
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 destructive operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'stop' entails, what gets terminated, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
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 parameter well. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('stop') and target ('npm run dev process'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'restart_dev_server' or 'auto_recover' that might also affect the dev server process.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'restart_dev_server' or 'auto_recover'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate versus other options.
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 searching but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format might be, or any potential side effects like performance impacts. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 in Japanese that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resources, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 complexity (simple search operation with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage context. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, this leaves gaps in completeness, though it meets the basic requirement of stating the purpose.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion about parameters. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict the schema and the schema handles the parameter documentation completely.
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: searching for package.json files and dev scripts within a project. It specifies both the target resources (package.json and dev scripts) and the action (searching). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dev_logs' or 'get_dev_status', which might also involve project directory operations.
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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_dev_logs' or 'restart_dev_server'. This leaves the agent with minimal direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/masamunet/npm-dev-mcp'

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