latest_versionMost recent released version of a Go module — with the resolved time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module_path | Yes | Module import path |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time | No | Timestamp of the release | |
| Version | No | Resolved latest version identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "module_path": "github.com/gin-gonic/gin"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "Time": {
+ "description": "Timestamp of the release",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "Version": {
+ "description": "Resolved latest version identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds only the 'resolved time' output detail, which is useful but minimal beyond 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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('most recent released version') and adds a key output trait afterward.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the main action and a notable output attribute. The only minor gap is clarifying the resolved time field, but the output schema likely covers that.
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% with a clear description for module_path. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameter, so it meets baseline expectations.
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 retrieves the most recent released version of a Go module with a resolved time, using specific verb-resource language. It distinguishes from siblings like list_versions by focusing on a single latest version.
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 implies usage for getting the latest version but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_versions or get_module_info. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
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.