dep_treeGet the full transitive dependency tree for a package (BFS, max depth 5).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name on hex.pm | |
| version | No | Release version (defaults to latest) | |
| max_depth | No | Maximum depth to traverse (default 5, max 5) |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the BFS traversal algorithm and the max depth limit of 5. However, it does not describe the return format, response structure, or any side effects (though likely read-only). The provided behavioral details are adequate but not comprehensive.
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 sentence of 13 words. It is extremely concise and front-loaded with the key action and constraints. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.
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 complexity of a dependency tree and the lack of an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the purpose, algorithm, and depth limit. However, it does not specify the format of the returned tree (e.g., list of packages, nested structure), which could aid the agent. This is a minor gap.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'name', 'version', and 'max_depth' parameters. It reiterates the max depth constraint but does not enhance understanding of the parameters.
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 it retrieves the full transitive dependency tree using BFS with a max depth of 5. The verb 'Get' and resource 'full transitive dependency tree' are specific, and the algorithm and depth constraint distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dependencies' which likely provide only direct dependencies.
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 over alternatives such as 'dependencies' or 'audit_mix_deps'. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it.
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 clearly distinct purposes, but 'audit' and 'audit_mix_deps' overlap in auditing dependencies, and 'dependencies' vs 'dep_tree' are related. Overall, the toolset is well-differentiated.
Tool names use snake_case consistently, but there is a mix of verb-based (search, compare) and noun-based (health, info) names, plus single-word vs compound names. Minor inconsistency but still predictable.
19 tools cover the Hex.pm ecosystem comprehensively without being overwhelming. Each tool addresses a specific need like searching, documentation, auditing, and dependency analysis.
The toolset covers major use cases: search, info, versions, documentation, dependencies, audit, health, and comparisons. Missing perhaps a tool for direct package source retrieval, but overall very thorough.