Skip to main content
Glama

Packagist

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Package

get_package
Read-onlyIdempotent

Full Packagist registry record for one PHP/Composer package named in vendor/package form, e.g. symfony/console. Returns description, repository URL, maintainers, license, type, download and favers counts, and every published version with its requires, autoload, and dist details. Answers what a Composer package is, who maintains it, and what each release declares.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPackage name in "vendor/package" form

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packageNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "name": "laravel/framework"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "package": {
+      "properties": {
+        "description": {
+          "description": "Package description",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "downloads": {
+          "properties": {
+            "daily": {
+              "description": "Daily downloads",
+              "type": "number"
+            },
+            "monthly": {
+              "description": "Monthly downloads",
+              "type": "number"
+            },
+            "total": {
+              "description": "Total downloads",
+              "type": "number"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "favers": {
+          "description": "Number of favorites",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "maintainers": {
+          "description": "List of package maintainers",
+          "items": {
+            "properties": {
+              "email": {
+                "description": "Maintainer email",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "name": {
+                "description": "Maintainer name",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "name": {
+          "description": "Package name",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "repository": {
+          "description": "Repository URL",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": {
+          "description": "Package type",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "url": {
+          "description": "Packagist URL",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "versions": {
+          "description": "Map of version strings to version details",
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the breadth of information returned, including every published version and its requires, autoload, and dist details, giving the agent a concrete expectation of the tool's output beyond the structured fields.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and input format with an example; the second enumerates the return fields in a compact list. Every word is functional, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description provides all necessary context: input format with example, output contents, and the questions it answers. It leaves no material gaps in understanding how to invoke or what to expect from the tool.

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% with the parameter 'name' described as 'Package name in "vendor/package" form'. The description repeats this format and adds an example, but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the full Packagist registry record for a single PHP/Composer package in vendor/package format, with an explicit example (symfony/console). It enumerates the exact data returned (description, repository URL, maintainers, license, type, downloads, favers, and all published versions with requires/autoload/dist details), making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like list_versions or package_stats.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a comprehensive registry record for one package and answers to questions about what the package is, who maintains it, and what each release declares. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to choose it over more targeted tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Packagist toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx_beta is a literal duplicate of ask_pipeworx, and ai_visibility_check/scans overlap with each other while the many prediction-market and edge tools cover similar ground. The verbose descriptions help somewhat, but an agent would frequently struggle to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (get_package, list_versions), others noun_verb (ai_visibility_check, bet_research), and several are brand-specific (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) with no uniform verb style. The mixed patterns make it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools is far too many for a server named Packagist: only 4-5 tools relate to the PHP/Composer registry while the vast majority concern Pipeworx data lookups, Polymarket analysis, and memory utilities. The scope is severely mismatched with the server's name and apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a Packagist registry server, the core read operations (search, get, list versions, stats) are present, but the server is cluttered with unrelated functionality and offers no package management actions. The tool set is not complete for any single, coherent domain, making it feel like two different servers merged into one.

Resources