docs
docsBrowse package documentation -- module listing.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name on hex.pm | |
| version | No | Package version (defaults to latest) |
Hex.pm MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Browse package documentation -- module listing', failing to mention read-only behavior, return format, or any other traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose. It is concise, but slightly lacking in structure or additional detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but does not specify the return format or confirm the behavior, leaving some gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the two parameters.
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 states 'Browse package documentation -- module listing', which clearly identifies the verb (browse), resource (package documentation), and scope (module listing). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like doc_item or readme, which could be related.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context for its appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
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.
Naming Consistency4/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
19 tools cover the Hex.pm ecosystem comprehensively without being overwhelming. Each tool addresses a specific need like searching, documentation, auditing, and dependency analysis.
Completeness4/5
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.