registry_health
Recorded outages of the package registries themselves, kept after their status pages drop them. Requires a key; see https://sighttrue.com/pricing.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| registry | No |
Sighttrue
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key requirement and the data retention aspect ('kept after their status pages drop them'), adding useful context beyond the tool name. However, with no annotations, it fails to describe output format, error behavior, or explicitly confirm a read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the key requirement. Both sentences earn their place, with no redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core concept but omits parameter semantics, output format, and usage context. The pricing link is helpful but does not compensate for the missing operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one optional 'registry' parameter with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what this parameter accepts or how it filters results. This leaves the agent without essential information for correct invocation.
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 clearly states the tool provides recorded outages of package registries, distinguishing it from package-level tools through the phrase 'themselves.' However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for comparison, so it misses the top score.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like provider_incidents or check_provider, and the key requirement is a precondition rather than a usage guideline.
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
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct query type: package status, stack review, provider incidents, model pricing, watchlist changes, etc. Even similar-sounding tools like check_package and check_stack are clearly differentiated by granularity (single package vs. whole manifest). The descriptions further remove ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
All names use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are imperative verb_noun (check_package, find_model, watch_add) while many are noun phrases (advisory_severity, provider_incidents, runtime_deadlines). This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun style, so there is noticeable inconsistency.
Tool Count2/5
At 31 tools, the count exceeds the 'too many' threshold (25+). While the domain is broad, the agent must navigate a large surface with many similarly scoped utilities, making selection harder. A more consolidated set (e.g., grouping related readings) would improve appropriateness.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers a wide range of supply-chain intelligence: package advisories, provider status, model pricing, runtime EOL, and watchlist changes. The only notable gap is lifecycle management for the private watchlist (e.g., no watch_remove or watch_list), but the overall coverage is strong.