Skip to main content
Glama
mykolariabokon

ProjectMind MCP

by mykolariabokon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

check_dependencies

Analyze project dependencies to detect version issues, pinning strategy gaps, duplicate packages, and lock file problems in Python, JavaScript, Go, and Rust projects.

Instructions

Analyzes project dependencies: versions, pinning strategy, duplicates, lock files.
Supports Python (pyproject.toml, requirements.txt), JS (package.json),
Go (go.mod), and Rust (Cargo.toml). No indexing required.

Returns:
    Dependency health report with version analysis.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.12.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool analyzes dependencies and requires no indexing, and it briefly describes the return shape. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, side effects, permissions, or how project context is selected.

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?

The description is front-loaded and compact: it states the analysis target, supported manifests, lack of indexing requirement, and return content. Every sentence contributes useful selection context without repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because an output schema exists and there are no parameters, the description does not need to explain return fields in detail. It covers supported languages and manifest files and notes that indexing is unnecessary. The main remaining gap is that it does not clarify which project/root context the analysis applies to.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter schema is 4.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it analyzes project dependencies, including versions, pinning strategy, duplicates, and lock files. It also scopes supported ecosystems and notes that no indexing is required. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling dependency tools such as get_dependencies_with_depth or find_dependency_path.

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?

Usage is implied by the listed analysis targets (versions, pinning, duplicates, lock files) and the supported manifest types. The description does not say when to choose this over sibling tools like get_dependencies_with_depth, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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