Skip to main content
Glama
xiaobenyang-com

CPAN-Package-Info

by xiaobenyang-com
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_package_info_from_cpan retrieves basic metadata and dependencies, get_readme_from_cpan focuses on documentation and examples, and search_packages_from_cpan handles discovery. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun_from_cpan pattern (e.g., get_package_info_from_cpan, get_readme_from_cpan, search_packages_from_cpan). This uniformity enhances readability and predictability, with no deviations in naming conventions.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 3 tools, the count is appropriate for the server's purpose of retrieving CPAN package information. It covers core needs like info, documentation, and search, though it might feel slightly thin if additional operations like version history or author details were expected, but it remains reasonable.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set provides good coverage for basic CPAN package interactions, including info, documentation, and search. Minor gaps exist, such as no tools for downloading packages, checking updates, or managing dependencies, but agents can work around these for most common use cases.

  • Average 2.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover critical aspects such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, behavioral traits, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'package README and usage examples' but doesn't explain the meaning or usage of parameters like 'package_name', 'version', or 'include_examples'. This fails to add meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

    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?

    The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('package README and usage examples from CPAN'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_package_info_from_cpan' or 'search_packages_from_cpan', which might also retrieve package information, so it lacks sibling distinction.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling tools. It mentions 'usage examples' but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't describe what kind of search results to expect, whether there's pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description only states what the tool does at the most basic level.

    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?

    The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains zero wasted text.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    For a search tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful search, what format results return, how to interpret the limit parameter, or how this differs from the sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about many operational aspects.

    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?

    With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what the 'query' and 'limit' parameters mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving the agent to guess about search syntax, query format, or what the limit controls.

    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?

    The description clearly states the action ('Search') and target resource ('packages in CPAN'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this search tool from the sibling 'get_package_info_from_cpan' tool, which appears to retrieve specific package information rather than search.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this search function is appropriate versus using 'get_package_info_from_cpan' for known packages.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling for invalid package names, or the format of returned information. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the complexity of a tool with 3 parameters (one required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error cases, response format, or usage constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete information to invoke the tool effectively in a real-world context.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'package basic information and dependencies', which aligns with the parameters 'package_name', 'include_dependencies', and 'include_dev_dependencies', adding some semantic context. However, it doesn't explain the meaning or implications of the boolean parameters, leaving ambiguity about what 'dev dependencies' entail or how they differ from regular dependencies.

    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?

    The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('package basic information and dependencies from CPAN'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_readme_from_cpan' or 'search_packages_from_cpan', which would be needed for a perfect score.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_packages_from_cpan' for broader searches or 'get_readme_from_cpan' for documentation, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

1777316659560451 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

1777316659560451 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659560451'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server