info
infoGet detailed information about a hex.pm package.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name on hex.pm |
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 provided, and description lacks behavioral details such as read-only nature, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'detailed information' specifically includes.
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?
Single efficient sentence with no fluff. Could be slightly improved by hinting at output structure, but remains to the point.
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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), description is adequate but incomplete—does not clarify return value format or what 'detailed information' entails.
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 describes the single parameter 'name' with coverage 100%. Description adds no extra meaning or context beyond the schema, maintaining baseline score.
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?
Description states verb+resource clearly: 'Get detailed information about a hex.pm package.' However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like dependencies, downloads, or owners that also provide specific package details.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like dependencies, downloads, or readme. Missing context about prerequisites 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.
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.