versionator-mcp

get_swift_package

Retrieve the latest version of a Swift package from GitHub by providing its repository in owner/repo format.

Instructions

Get the latest version of a Swift package from GitHub.

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": {
      "package_name": "<package_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_swift_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`package_name`	Yes	The Swift package name (GitHub repo format: owner/repo)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get the latest version' – no mention of authentication, rate limits, error cases, or whether it's read-only. The mutability is implied but not explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It is concise but could optionally include a brief usage note without harming conciseness. Loses a point for lacking any structure beyond one line.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose but omits context like prerequisites (e.g., GitHub API access) or error handling. It is minimally viable but not robust.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (package_name has a description), so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema – it just reinforces the GitHub context. No examples or additional constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get the latest version') and the resource ('Swift package from GitHub'), which fully differentiates it from siblings like get_npm_package or get_python_package. It is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. While the resource name hints at Swift packages, there is no mention of when not to use it or direct references to siblings.

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