get_packageLook up a single Hex.pm package (Elixir/Erlang mix package) by name. Returns description, licenses, links, latest version, and download counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name, e.g. "phoenix" or "ecto". |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the operation returns specific fields (description, licenses, links, latest version, download counts), but it doesn't disclose behavior on missing packages or any other runtime traits. This adds some value without contradicting the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action, the target, and the exact return payload, all before any filler.
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?
For a simple read-only lookup with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the resource type, the lookup key, and the returned fields. Nothing an agent needs to successfully call it is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'name' is described with examples. The description adds context about what the package name refers to (Hex.pm, Elixir/Erlang), but that's more tool-level context than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter.
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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') with a specific resource ('a single Hex.pm package ... by name'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling search/list tools like search_packages. It also names the target ecosystem (Elixir/Erlang mix) which removes 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?
The phrase 'a single ... by name' implies this should be used when the exact package name is known, which differentiates it from search_packages or list_releases. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.
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.
Several tools occupy overlapping question-answering territory: ask_pipeworx_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route the same data catalog and differ mainly in output guarantees. The six Polymarket tools also split edge detection, arbitrage, and fill-risk in ways that are easy for an agent to conflate. Clear exceptions like the memory and subscription trios keep it from a 1.
Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and most follow a readable verb-first or domain-prefixed pattern (get_package, list_releases, scan_dependency, ask_pipeworx_*). The Polymarket family uses noun phrases after a prefix (polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk) and a few names are noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes), which is a minor inconsistency rather than chaos.
35 tools is well beyond the comfortable 3-15 range and even above the 16-25 heavy range. The broad Pipeworx data scope justifies some expansion, but identical ask_pipeworx_beta, six overlapping Polymarket tools, and unrelated utility families (Hex.pm, AI visibility, memory, llms.txt) suggest bloat rather than deliberate scoping.
Within its main data-access purpose, the surface is unusually complete: query (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification (ask_pipeworx_grounded/validate_claim), deep research, entity resolution/profiling, comparison, change feeds, and search-within are all present, and memory/subscription subdomains have full CRUD. There are minor gaps for the package side (no docs/dependents) and the hodgepodge of domains makes a single 'complete' surface hard to define, but no workflow hits a hard dead end.