NPMScan

Get basic profile info for an npm maintainer

get_maintainer_profile

Read-only

Given an npm username, returns every package npm's own maintainer: search index currently returns for that account (registry.npmjs.org's /-/v1/search — the public registry API has no dedicated 'list packages by maintainer' endpoint otherwise), plus precomputed aggregates: currentlyMaintainsCount (still listed as maintainer right now vs. already-revoked), totalWeeklyDownloads and totalDependents summed across every returned package, and avatarUrl — the same Gravatar image npmjs.com's own profile page shows for this account, derived from the email already public in the registry's own maintainer records but served from our own /api/avatar/:hash proxy rather than linking gravatar.com directly (null only if no returned package still lists an email for this exact username). This is a plain info lookup — it does NOT run the publish-cluster / compromised-account detection that check_maintainer_blast_radius does; use that tool instead when the goal is a security read on whether this account's recent activity looks like a takeover, not just a profile summary. Natural pairing with check_maintainer_changes: once that tool names a maintainer on a package, call this with that maintainer's username to see the rest of what they touch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`maintainerUsername`	Yes	Exact npm username, e.g. "sindresorhus" — as shown at npmjs.com/~username. Not an email address, not a package name or scope.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`packages`	Yes
`avatarUrl`	Yes
`npmProfileUrl`	Yes
`totalDependents`	Yes
`packagesReturned`	Yes
`resultsTruncated`	Yes
`maintainerUsername`	Yes
`totalPackagesFound`	Yes
`totalWeeklyDownloads`	Yes
`currentlyMaintainsCount`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / avatarUrl

Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "maintainerUsername",
-  "npmProfileUrl",
-  "totalPackagesFound",
-  "packagesReturned",
-  "resultsTruncated",
-  "currentlyMaintainsCount",
-  "totalWeeklyDownloads",
-  "totalDependents",
-  "packages",
-  "note"
-]New value: +[
+  "maintainerUsername",
+  "npmProfileUrl",
+  "avatarUrl",
+  "totalPackagesFound",
+  "packagesReturned",
+  "resultsTruncated",
+  "currentlyMaintainsCount",
+  "totalWeeklyDownloads",
+  "totalDependents",
+  "packages",
+  "note"
+]

AddedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, it discloses that this is a plain info lookup, does NOT run compromised-account detection, depends on npm's current search index, and defines what currentlyMaintainsCount and avatarUrl mean. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is heavily front-loaded and every clause adds context, but it is a long single run-on paragraph with dense parentheticals. It is efficient in content, not in structure.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not re-explain return shape; it covers the data source quirk, aggregate semantics, avatar null behavior, and routing to sibling tools. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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% and the schema already documents maintainerUsername as an exact npm username with exclusions. The description only says 'Given an npm username,' so it adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Given an npm username, returns every package npm's own maintainer:<username> search index currently returns for that account,' then enumerates the aggregates. It also contrasts itself with check_maintainer_blast_radius, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly tells the agent to use check_maintainer_blast_radius instead when the intent is a security/takeover read, and it names the natural workflow with check_maintainer_changes. This is direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All NPMScan tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct scopes, such as flat vs. transitive vulnerability checks and per-package vs. GitHub-repo audits. The main ambiguity is that several tools all ultimately report OSV/NVD findings or perform install-script risk checks, though the descriptions do draw clear boundaries and include cross-references to steer selection.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern, e.g. analyze_install_script, check_maintainer_changes, prioritize_remediation. The naming is predictable and makes the action and target of each tool immediately clear.

Tool Count3/5

At 22 tools, the surface is at the heavy end of the rubric and pushes beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. The tools are individually purposeful and broad in coverage, but the count is high enough that an agent faces a large decision space and several workflows that overlap or compose in complex ways.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full npm supply-chain assessment lifecycle: discovery, metadata lookup, vulnerability scanning, transitive dependency analysis, license checks, install-script analysis, maintainer and provenance checks, SBOM generation, dependency diffs, upgrade simulation, remediation prioritization, and alternative suggestion. There are no obvious dead ends or major missing operations for the stated domain.

Resources

Need Help?