Skip to main content
Glama
mcp-tool-shop-org

mcp-shipcheck

by mcp-tool-shop-org
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: audit checks npm publish readiness, explainFailure decodes error codes, and packPreview shows file inclusions. An agent can easily distinguish between these three focused functions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a perfect verb_noun pattern (audit, explainFailure, packPreview) with consistent dot notation (shipcheck.*) and snake_case for multi-word names. The naming is highly predictable and readable throughout.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, this server is well-scoped for its purpose of npm package readiness checks. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects (auditing, error explanation, and packing preview) without being overly sparse or bloated.

    Completeness4/5

    The toolset covers core npm package readiness workflows effectively: audit for checks, explainFailure for troubleshooting, and packPreview for validation. A minor gap exists in lacking a tool to directly fix issues (e.g., auto-correct or apply fixes), but agents can work around this using the explanations provided.

  • Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    The description adds valuable context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that it provides explanations and suggests fixes. The '(read-only)' parenthetical reinforces the annotation while adding practical behavioral information about what the tool delivers. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed response format.

    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 (one sentence with parenthetical) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure efficiently communicates the tool's function and safety characteristic in minimal space.

    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 single-parameter read-only tool with good schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool does and its safety profile. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't indicate what format the explanations and fixes will take, but this is partially compensated by the clear purpose statement.

    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 fully documents the single 'code' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or examples.

    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: 'Explain a shipcheck failure code and suggest fixes'. It specifies the verb 'explain' and resource 'shipcheck failure code', and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on failure explanation rather than audit or preview functions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings in the description text itself.

    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 context (when a failure code needs explanation) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools shipcheck.audit or shipcheck.packPreview. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

    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 adds the 'read-only' qualifier, which aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation, providing helpful reinforcement. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as what specific checks are performed, error handling, or output format expectations.

    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 front-loads the core purpose ('Audit a local Node/TypeScript package') followed by scope ('for npm publish readiness') and safety qualifier ('read-only'). Every element serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words.

    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 single-parameter read-only audit tool with good annotations, the description provides adequate context about purpose and scope. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what the audit returns (e.g., success/failure indicators, specific issues found), leaving some uncertainty about the tool's complete 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 for the single 'path' parameter, the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing additional semantic context.

    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 ('Audit') and resource ('a local Node/TypeScript package'), with explicit scope ('for npm publish readiness') and safety qualifier ('read-only'). It distinguishes from potential siblings by focusing on audit rather than explanation or preview functions.

    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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('for npm publish readiness'), but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (explainFailure, packPreview). The 'read-only' qualifier helps establish appropriate use cases.

    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?

    The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying this is a preview/simulation ('would be included') and that it reports size totals. It doesn't contradict the read-only annotation and provides useful operational details about what the tool actually does.

    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 perfectly concise with a single sentence that contains no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes all necessary information efficiently.

    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 single-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and its behavioral characteristics. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description does mention what information will be returned (file list and size totals).

    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 fully documents the single 'path' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without exceeding it.

    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 ('Show which files would be included') and resource ('by `npm pack`') with additional scope ('and report size totals'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is a preview/read-only operation rather than actual execution.

    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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to preview npm pack results before actual packing) and implies it's an alternative to running npm pack directly. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools.

    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

shipcheck MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

shipcheck MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/mcp-tool-shop-org/shipcheck'

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