get_go_modRaw go.mod contents for a specific version. Useful for dependency analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | Yes | Version | |
| module_path | Yes | Module import path |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| go_mod | Yes | Raw go.mod file contents | |
| version | Yes | Module version | |
| module_path | Yes | Module import path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "module_path": "github.com/gin-gonic/gin",
+ "version": "v1.9.1"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "go_mod": {
+ "description": "Raw go.mod file contents",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "module_path": {
+ "description": "Module import path",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "description": "Module version",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "module_path",
+ "version",
+ "go_mod"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'raw contents' (implying text output). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description does not elaborate on what 'raw' means or any potential variations (e.g., error states).
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 well-formed sentence that states the core function and a use case. Every part is meaningful and there is no redundancy or waste.
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 rich annotations, a simple schema of two parameters, and an output schema (not shown here), the description is largely complete. It could briefly note that the output is raw text, but the output schema presumably covers that. The description is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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%, meaning both parameters ('version' and 'module_path') are described in the schema. The description repeats the idea of 'specific version' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.
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 clearly states the tool provides 'raw go.mod contents for a specific version' and mentions a concrete use case ('dependency analysis'). This verb+resource combination clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_module_info or list_versions.
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 description gives an implied usage context ('dependency analysis') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_module_info (which returns structured info) or scan_dependency (which analyzes dependencies). No exclusion criteria or specific scenarios are mentioned.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all performing similar data lookups. Additionally, many tools focus on prediction markets and arbitrage, which are unrelated to the server's implied Go development domain, causing confusion.
Tool names follow inconsistent conventions: some use snake_case (e.g., 'latest_version', 'list_versions'), some use underscores in longer names (e.g., 'ai_visibility_check', 'ask_pipeworx_grounded'), and some use colons in descriptions but not in names. This mix reduces predictability.
With 35 tools, the count is high for a server named 'Pkg Go Dev' that only offers a few Go module-related tools (e.g., get_go_mod, list_versions). The majority are unrelated Pipeworx tools, making the scope mismatched and excessive.
The tool set severely lacks coverage for Go development tasks. It only includes basic module lookup tools (version listing, mod retrieval) but misses essential operations like dependency analysis, build commands, or testing. The vast majority of tools cover unrelated domains (prediction markets, company profiles, etc.), leaving the server incomplete for its intended purpose.