Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
npm-mcp

npm-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

pending-scripts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists dependencies with install scripts that need review before installation, without modifying package.json. Requires npm 12 or later.

Instructions

List dependencies whose install scripts need review without changing package.json. Requires npm 12 or later.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "pending-scripts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.4.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it confirms package.json is not mutated and imposes a runtime version requirement (npm 12+), which an agent cannot learn from the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, action and effect first, prerequisite second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema and one parameter, the description covers effect and prerequisite, which is most of what matters. The unresolved meaning of 'path' is the notable gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'path' parameter is completely undocumented. The description never says whether path is a project directory, a package.json file, or a lockfile, leaving the only required input ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('dependencies whose install scripts need review'), which is meaningfully different from siblings like run-script or install. It doesn't explicitly name the complementary approve-scripts/deny-scripts tools, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

'without changing package.json' implies this is the safe inspection step before approve-scripts/deny-scripts, but that workflow is never spelled out. The npm 12+ prerequisite is a genuine usage constraint, yet there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance.

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