Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
npm-mcp

npm-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

owner

List, add, or remove owners for an npm package. Requires package name and optional OTP for 2FA.

Instructions

Manage package owners

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "package": "<package>"
    },
    "name": "owner"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
otpNoOne-time password for 2FA
userNoUsername (required for add/rm)
actionYesAction to perform
packageYesPackage name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Manage' which implies mutation, but no details on side effects, auth needs, or idempotency. The read-only 'ls' action is not distinguished from destructive 'add/rm'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While very concise (3 words), it is under-specified. Lacks front-loading of key details like available actions or required parameters.

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 medium complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error handling, or prerequisites like authentication.

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 each parameter has a brief description. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description says 'Manage package owners', which is a clear verb-resource pair, but is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'access' or 'deprecate'. The actions (ls, add, rm) are only revealed in the schema.

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 instead of siblings. The description provides no context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools