Retrieve detailed metadata for a specific package or version from a Verdaccio private npm registry. Check dependencies, versions, and package details before install or publish.
Get detailed metadata for a specific package (and optionally a specific version) from Verdaccio
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package | Yes | Package name, e.g. my-lib or @scope/my-lib | |
| version | No | Specific version, e.g. 1.2.3 (omit for latest) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' plus 'metadata' implies a safe read and the parenthetical discloses the version-optional, latest-by-default behavior, but nothing is said about whether a registry/auth context is required, what happens when the package or version does not exist, or how large the metadata payload is.
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?
A single sentence with the verb, resource, optional scope, and source system front-loaded. There is no filler and nothing redundant.
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?
For a two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it establishes what is fetched but not what metadata fields come back or any failure behavior. An agent could call it correctly, but not predict the response.
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% and both parameters already carry examples and the 'omit for latest' note, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that version is optional and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it.
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 ('Get detailed metadata for a specific package') and clarifies the optional version scope, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the sibling find_package, which leaves the agent to guess which one to reach for when the exact package name is uncertain.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With find_package sitting in the sibling list, the boundary between lookup-by-name and search is never drawn, so the agent must infer the intended context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.