code-checkerCheck if the code contains some inefficient or outdated packages imported and suggests alternatives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The code to check. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suggestions | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the tool checks and suggests alternatives, but lacks details on whether it modifies code, the format of suggestions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand its behavior fully.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing actions) without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (though not provided in context), the description may not need to detail return values. However, it lacks clarity on what constitutes 'inefficient or outdated packages' and the nature of the suggestions. The description is adequate but minimal.
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 coverage is 100% as the single parameter 'code' has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is 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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: one checks source code for inefficient imports, one looks up replacements by various criteria, and one checks install command syntax for outdated packages. There is minor overlap between code-checker and npm-i-checker, but descriptions clarify the different contexts, so agents can generally distinguish them.
All use snake_case, but the naming patterns are inconsistent: 'code-checker' and 'npm-i-checker' follow a noun-checker pattern, while 'lookup-replacement' uses a verb-noun pattern. 'npm-i-checker' is also somewhat cryptic, mixing package manager syntax. This lack of a uniform verb_noun convention makes the set less predictable.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of checking code and packages for inefficient or outdated dependencies. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of the workflow, and there are no redundant or missing tools that would make the count feel too thin or heavy.
The tool surface covers the main needs: checking source code, looking up replacements generally, and verifying install commands. A minor gap is the lack of a direct tool to check a package.json file or to analyze a whole project for inefficiencies, but the three tools together handle most common scenarios without significant dead ends.