Publish a package to the Verdaccio registry using its name and version, with required package metadata generated automatically.
Publish a package to the Verdaccio registry by name and version. Generates the required package metadata automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Dist-tag to apply (default: latest) | |
| name | Yes | Package name, e.g. my-lib or @scope/my-lib | |
| version | Yes | Version to publish, e.g. 1.0.0 |
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. It adds one useful detail ('generates the required package metadata automatically'), but omits auth requirements, what happens when a version already exists, and any failure/overwrite semantics for what is clearly a mutating operation.
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, with no filler. The second sentence carries real information about automatic metadata generation rather than padding.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover authentication needs and conflict behavior. It is silent on both, leaving an agent unable to predict failure modes even though the parameter surface itself is fully covered by the schema.
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%, so the schema already documents name, version, and the tag default of 'latest'. The description reinforces that name and version are the key inputs but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Publish a package to the Verdaccio registry by name and version'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not name or distinguish itself from the obvious sibling unpublish_package, but the verb alone makes the distinction unambiguous.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites, even though siblings include login, add_user, and create_token, strongly implying authentication is required before publishing. The agent gets no routing or precondition information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.