toolbox_categoryList the curated projects in an Elixir Toolbox category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Ordering: "name" (alphabetical) or "downloads"; defaults to popularity order | |
| group | Yes | Group slug (e.g. "web", "ai") | |
| category | Yes | Category slug within the group (e.g. "frameworks") |
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not mention sorting, pagination, read-only nature, or default ordering, leaving behavioral traits undisclosed.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence, front-loaded with main action. No wasted words, but could benefit from additional context without sacrificing brevity.
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?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. Lacks details on response format, pagination, or what constitutes 'curated projects', leaving users underinformed.
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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds context by linking parameters to the 'category' concept, but adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 'List the curated projects in an Elixir Toolbox category', specifying verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like toolbox_group (lists groups) or toolbox_trending (trending projects), leaving room for ambiguity.
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 over siblings. With 23 sibling tools including toolbox_search and toolbox_group, the description should indicate context or exclusions.
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.