xpay✦ DevTools Collection

resolve-library-id

Resolves a package/product name to a Context7-compatible library ID and returns matching libraries.

You MUST call this function before 'query-docs' to obtain a valid Context7-compatible library ID UNLESS the user explicitly provides a library ID in the format '/org/project' or '/org/project/version' in their query.

Selection Process:

Analyze the query to understand what library/package the user is looking for
Return the most relevant match based on:

Name similarity to the query (exact matches prioritized)
Description relevance to the query's intent
Documentation coverage (prioritize libraries with higher Code Snippet counts)
Source reputation (consider libraries with High or Medium reputation more authoritative)
Benchmark Score: Quality indicator (100 is the highest score)

Response Format:

Return the selected library ID in a clearly marked section
Provide a brief explanation for why this library was chosen
If multiple good matches exist, acknowledge this but proceed with the most relevant one
If no good matches exist, clearly state this and suggest query refinements

For ambiguous queries, request clarification before proceeding with a best-guess match.

IMPORTANT: Do not call this tool more than 3 times per question. If you cannot find what you need after 3 calls, use the best result you have.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	The question or task you need help with. This is used to rank library results by relevance to what the user is trying to accomplish. The query is sent to the Context7 API for processing. Do not include any sensitive or confidential information such as API keys, passwords, credentials, personal data, or proprietary code in your query.
`libraryName`	Yes	Library name to search for and retrieve a Context7-compatible library ID.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedMar 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the selection criteria (name similarity, description relevance, documentation coverage, reputation, benchmark score), the response format, handling of multiple/no matches, and an explicit rate limit of 3 calls per question.

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 description is longer than average but well-structured with sections (Selection Process, Response Format, IMPORTANT). It front-loads the MUST requirement and provides necessary procedural details, with each sentence serving a purpose. Slightly verbose but appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description explains the response format (clearly marked section, explanation, acknowledgment, suggestions). It also covers edge cases like no matches and ambiguous queries, plus the call limit, making it fully complete for a 2-param 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are clearly documented in the schema. The description reinforces their purpose ('Analyze the query...') but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with 'Resolves a package/product name to a Context7-compatible library ID and returns matching libraries,' which precisely states the action and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly requiring it before 'query-docs'.

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?

States 'You MUST call this function before query-docs' and clarifies the exception when the user provides a library ID. Also provides guidance for ambiguous queries and a 3-call limit, giving clear when-to-use instructions.

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

All xpay✦ DevTools Collection 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

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.

Resources

Need Help?