Fetch read-only HeyClaude MCP package, registry, tool, and public rate-limit metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| policy | No |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context that metadata is public and covers specific resources, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence with all essential information; no redundant words. Front-loaded with core action and resource scope.
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?
Tool has zero parameters and an output schema. Description covers the scope of metadata returned (package, registry, tool, rate-limit) and notes read-only nature, which is sufficient given structured annotations and output 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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score 4 applies as description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info.
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?
Description clearly states the tool fetches read-only metadata for specific entities (package, registry, tool, rate-limit). It distinguishes from sibling tools like registry.list and registry.stats by being a general info endpoint.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit context or exclusions provided, leaving the agent to infer its applicability.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, especially with clear prefixes. However, there is some overlap between entry.safety and entry.trust (both deal with safety/trust metadata), and between registry.recommend and registry.plan (both provide recommendations). The descriptions help differentiate but some ambiguity remains.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a domain prefix (entry, install, registry, submission) followed by a descriptive noun, all lowercase with underscores. This makes the surface predictable and easy to navigate.
27 tools is slightly high but reasonable given the broad scope of the HeyClaude registry, which includes browsing, recommending, installing guidance, and submission preparation. The count is appropriate for the server's purpose.
The tool surface is comprehensive, covering search, detail, comparison, safety/trust analysis, install setup for multiple clients, recommendation, and a full submission pipeline (validation, review, schema, etc.). There are no obvious gaps for the intended read-only registry directory functionality.
