DependencyMCP Server

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. It mentions the return values (package name, latest version, description, timestamp), which is helpful, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it returns stable vs. prerelease versions. It adequately describes the core behavior but misses operational traits.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage contexts and return values in a second sentence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension by an agent.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return values, though it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., error cases) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('package_name' and 'registry') with descriptions and enum values. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, 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.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get the latest version of a package') and resource ('a package'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_version_exists' (which verifies existence) or 'get_package_info' (which may return broader metadata). The verb 'Get' combined with 'latest version' precisely defines the tool's function.

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?

The description provides clear usage contexts ('dependency updates, version checks, or when you need the most recent stable release'), helping an agent understand when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., 'get_latest_versions' for multiple packages), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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