List the indexed Canton/Daml npm packages (sdk_versions registry=npm) optionally filtered by name. Canton-specific.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max packages (default 25). | |
| query | No | Optional substring filter on package name. | |
| offset | No | Skip this many before returning, for paging past the limit. The response states the full count and echoes the offset used. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Skip this many before returning, for paging past the limit. The response states the full count and echoes the offset used.",
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the detail 'indexed ... registry=npm' and 'Canton-specific', which provide some context, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response structure or pagination beyond what schema already conveys. No contradictions found.
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, front-loaded sentence: 'List the indexed Canton/Daml npm packages...'. Every word earns its place, providing the verb, resource, optional filter, and domain context without waste.
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 simple read-only list tool with three optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description covers the essential purpose and context. It lacks an explicit alternative or return format, but the schema explains the offset response detail, and annotations cover safety. The description is complete enough for selection and invocation.
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 limit, query, and offset with clear descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value beyond saying 'filtered by name', which maps to the query parameter. Baseline 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List the indexed Canton/Daml npm packages' with a specific scope ('optionally filtered by name') and domain ('Canton-specific'). This distinguishes it from siblings that list other resources or focus on different registries.
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 provides clear context and an implicit exclusion with 'Canton-specific', indicating this tool is for Canton/Daml npm packages only. However, it does not name alternative tools for non-Canton packages or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Many tools have overlapping search/retrieval functionality (search, semantic_search, full_context, search_community, search_github_issues, etc.), and the CIP-specific variants (get_cip, get_cip_history, get_cip_votes, get_cip_mentions, get_cip_citations) are numerous and subtly differentiated. Despite cross-references in the descriptions, the boundaries are fine-grained and an agent is likely to misselect among the 8+ search tools or the 8+ CIP tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_x, list_x, search_x, find_x). Mixed styles or camelCase are absent, and the verb choice (get, list, search, find, detect, compare) is semantically appropriate to each action, making the naming highly predictable.
With 88 tools, the surface is extremely overgrown for a single server, far exceeding the 25+ 'too many' threshold and approaching the 50+ 'extreme mismatch' category. Even for a comprehensive ecosystem knowledge base, this creates a massive selection burden and makes the tool set unwieldy for agents.
The server covers the full Canton ecosystem: docs, forum, mailing lists, GitHub, CIPs, governance, validators, versions, deprecations, security, and media. There are no glaring gaps in the knowledge domain; every major resource type has retrieval and analysis tools, making the coverage exhaustive with no obvious dead ends.