Remove a specific package version from the Verdaccio registry by deleting its metadata entry and tarball.
Unpublish a specific version of a package from the Verdaccio registry. Removes the version from metadata and deletes its tarball.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name, e.g. my-lib or @scope/my-lib | |
| version | Yes | Version to unpublish, e.g. 1.0.3 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the concrete effects ('Removes the version from metadata and deletes its tarball'), which is genuinely useful destructive-effect context, but it omits auth/permission requirements, irreversibility, and any guard conditions (e.g. cannot unpublish the last remaining version).
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, zero filler, with the resource and the destructive consequence front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.
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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core effect but leaves out auth requirements, failure modes, and irreversibility. It is adequate but not complete for a delete-style operation.
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 both parameters ('name' and 'version') are already fully documented with examples in the schema. The description only echoes 'specific version' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Unpublish') and resource ('a specific version of a package from the Verdaccio registry') with clear scope limited to a single version rather than the whole package. The verb inherently contrasts with the sibling publish_package, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 says what the tool does but never states when to use it, when not to, or what prerequisites/alternatives exist. Usage is only implied by the tool name, so the agent gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.