feat(tools): add a check to verify package name in readme

[krokoko]

Fixes

Summary

Created a comprehensive verification script (tools/verify_package_name.py) that:

• 🔍 Detects Package References In:

  • JSON configuration blocks
  • Command-line examples (uvx, uv tool run)
  • Cursor installation links (with Base64-encoded config)
  • VS Code installation links (with URL-encoded JSON config)
  • Docker run commands

• ✅ Key Features:

  • Smart Pattern Matching: Uses intelligent regex patterns to find package references
  • Base64/URL Decoding: Handles both Base64-encoded and URL-encoded configurations
  • False Positive Filtering: Removes common non-package references (JSON keys, command flags, etc.)
  • Comprehensive Coverage: Checks all installation instruction formats used in the codebase

Examples:

$ python3 tools/verify_package_name.py src/amazon-neptune-mcp-server                                                         ✔  3.13  
✅ Package name verification passed for awslabs.amazon-neptune-mcp-server

Introduce an error in the readme:

$ python3 tools/verify_package_name.py src/amazon-neptune-mcp-server                                                            ✔  3.
❌ Package name verification failed for awslabs.amazon-neptune-mcp-server
  - Package name mismatch: found 'awslabs.amazon-neptunse-mcp-server' but expected 'awslabs.amazon-neptune-mcp-server'

You can see an example of failure here: https://github.com/awslabs/mcp/actions/runs/18725717485/job/53409738878?pr=1572#step:12:1 (was a false positive which was fixed)
Check for the checks in this PR to see it running and passing on all servers

Changes

Please provide a summary of what's being changed

User experience

Please share what the user experience looks like before and after this change

Checklist

If your change doesn't seem to apply, please leave them unchecked.

• I have reviewed the contributing guidelines
• I have performed a self-review of this change
• Changes have been tested
• Changes are documented

Is this a breaking change? (Y/N)

RFC issue number:

Checklist:

• Migration process documented
• Implement warnings (if it can live side by side)

Acknowledgment

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of the project license.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 89.23%. Comparing base (620db3f) to head (5d8bda2).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1572      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.46%   89.23%   -0.23%     
==========================================
  Files         724      620     -104     
  Lines       50966    45471    -5495     
  Branches     8145     7421     -724     
==========================================
- Hits        45596    40578    -5018     
+ Misses       3459     3152     -307     
+ Partials     1911     1741     -170     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.