Retrieves a depth-limited resolved dependency graph from deps.dev for a package version, helping you inspect transitive dependencies and map package relationships.
Return a depth-limited resolved dependency graph from deps.dev. Default depth is 2, max 4.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| depth | No | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| ecosystem | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new facts: the graph is depth-limited, the default is 2, and the data comes from an external service (consistent with openWorldHint). It says nothing about what 'resolved' entails, pagination, or failure modes when a package is unknown.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the depth constraint is packed into the same breath. No filler, no restatement of the title.
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?
With no output schema and zero parameter coverage, an agent still cannot tell what the graph looks like (node/edge shape, how resolution conflicts are reported) or what the version/ecosystem parameters require. For a four-parameter, network-backed tool, the definition is too thin to call reliably without guessing.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only explains depth (default 2, cap 4) — the one piece of information the schema does not already give. The three required parameters (ecosystem, name, version) and their expected formats/relationship are left entirely unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Return a ... resolved dependency graph') plus the data source (deps.dev), which clearly separates it from metadata siblings like get_package and get_version. It stops short of naming a sibling or contrasting behavior, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to reach for this over get_package, compare_packages, or audit_lockfile when the agent needs transitive dependency information. Only the name and purpose imply usage, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.