npmMaintenance
Maintenance metrics analysis
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packages | Yes | Package names array | |
| ignoreCache | No | Bypass cache |
xpay✦ DevTools Collection
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states a vague domain. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what data it returns, whether it makes network requests, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely queries npm data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is under-specified—a single phrase that does not earn its place by providing critical information. While it is short, it is not effectively concise; it omits essential details and lacks any front-loaded actionable content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what maintenance metrics are, how they are calculated, what result format to expect, or how this tool differs from the many related npm sibling tools. The agent cannot reliably invoke or interpret the tool's output.
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?
The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('Package names array' and 'Bypass cache'), covering 100% of parameters. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters relate to analysis or what 'maintenance metrics' means. The schema descriptions are minimal, but enough for the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Maintenance metrics analysis' is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It does not specify what the tool does (e.g., 'fetch', 'calculate', 'report') and is barely more informative than the tool name itself. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like npmQuality or npmRepoStats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as npmScore, npmDeps, or npmQuality. There is no mention of intended scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The lack of any usage context leaves the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools have overlapping or ambiguous purposes that could confuse an agent. For example, analyze_code, analyze_patterns, and analyze_design_patterns all involve code analysis with unclear boundaries, while check_deceptive_patterns and check_placeholders seem like subsets of analyze_code. The NPM tools form a coherent group but are distinct from the rest, creating a fragmented toolset.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are highly inconsistent across the toolset. Some tools use snake_case (e.g., analyze_code, execute_code), others use camelCase (e.g., npmAlternatives, npmChangelogAnalysis), and there are mixed styles like query-docs with hyphens. The NPM tools follow a consistent npmPrefix pattern internally, but this is not applied to other tools, leading to overall chaos.
Tool Count2/5
With 39 tools, this server is overloaded for a 'DevTools Collection' scope. The count feels excessive, as many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple analysis tools) or logically grouped. While the NPM tools are numerous but focused, the overall set lacks cohesion, making it cumbersome for an agent to navigate and select appropriate tools efficiently.
Completeness3/5
The toolset covers a broad range of development tasks, including code analysis, execution, documentation, and package management, but there are notable gaps. For example, there is no tool for code generation or refactoring, and the Microsoft and NPM tools are well-covered but isolated from other functionalities. The surface is extensive but not fully integrated, with some dead ends in workflow transitions.