DependencyMCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'versions list, homepage, repository, and full package details', which adds useful context about the output. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing usage context and return details. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, usage, and return values, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential errors or limitations, such as handling of non-existent packages, but it's adequate for most use cases.

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 an enum for 'registry'. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating further.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed package information including all versions'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_latest_version' by emphasizing 'all versions' rather than just the latest, and from 'check_version_exists' by providing comprehensive metadata rather than just existence checks.

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 context for when to use this tool ('for dependency audits, security reviews, or when you need comprehensive package metadata'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, such as using 'get_latest_version' for just the latest version instead.

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