pkgintel-mcp

get_version

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up an exact package version on deps.dev to retrieve licenses, advisories, links, and SLSA or provenance details when available.

Instructions

Look up one exact package version on deps.dev. Returns licences, advisories, links, and SLSA or provenance when present.

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": {
      "ecosystem": "<ecosystem>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "get_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`ecosystem`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds valuable payload disclosure (licences, advisories, links, SLSA/provenance) and the conditional "when present". It does not state what happens on a missing version or an unsupported ecosystem.

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, zero waste, with the identifying constraint front-loaded and the value proposition second.

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?

For a simple 3-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and that some fields are conditional. The remaining gap is miss/error behavior and parameter formatting.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, yet it only hints that the version must be exact rather than a range or "latest". It says nothing about ecosystem enum values, the name format, or how the three required fields combine.

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 concrete verb ("Look up") and a precise resource scope ("one exact package version on deps.dev"), and enumerates the payload (licences, advisories, links, SLSA/provenance). This implicitly separates it from search_packages and get_package, but no sibling is named.

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?

The phrase "one exact package version" implies you must already know a pinned version, which hints at when to use it versus a package-level or search tool. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative tool is named.

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

Deploy Server