Set, view, grant, or revoke package visibility levels and team permissions for published npm packages, including public, private, and restricted controls.
Set or view access level on published packages
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| otp | No | One-time password for 2FA | |
| team | No | Team name in org:team format (for grant/revoke) | |
| level | No | Access level (for set action) | |
| action | Yes | Action to perform | |
| package | No | Package name | |
| permission | No | Permission level (for grant action) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Input schema / properties / level / enumPrevious value: -[
- "public",
- "restricted"
-]New value: +[
+ "public",
+ "private",
+ "restricted"
+]v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that set/grant/revoke are mutations requiring authorization and possibly an OTP, nor what happens to existing grants on revoke, nor the difference in behavior between read and write actions. For a permission-changing tool 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably too short for a five-action mutation tool, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
With five distinct actions, six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain action-dependent behavior (what list/get return, who can grant/revoke, 2FA requirement). None of that is present, so an agent cannot know how to safely invoke the mutating actions.
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 description coverage is 100% with clear enums and per-parameter descriptions (otp, team, level, action, package, permission), so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about how parameters interact across actions (e.g., 'team' only for grant/revoke), so baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description gives a verb and resource ('Set or view access level on published packages'), but the bare name 'access' carries no meaning on its own and the sentence only loosely covers the five enumerated actions — grant/revoke of team permissions are not really 'setting an access level.' It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like owner or token, which also manipulate per-package permissions.
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, no prerequisites (e.g., must be package owner or authenticated with 2FA), and no mention of alternatives such as owner for transferring ownership. The agent must infer everything from the action enum.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.