Dependency Vulnerability Tracker — package security advisories ($0.01/query)

data_preview

Read-onlyIdempotent

✅ No API key needed — call this now. Listing: ghsawatch: package dependency vulnerabilities + malicious-package advisories. Price 0.01 USDC/query (max 20 queries/session). Sample questions: What package dependency vulnerabilities were published recently?; Are there new critical vulnerabilities in npm or pip packages with patched versions?. FREE preview — no key, no payment. Try one of the sample questions now.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	No	Public listing slug. Defaults to the routed session's listing when connected via /mcp/data/{slug}/http.
`question`	No	Optional free-text question you'd ask this data (echoed back).

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful context about no API key and free access, but it does not disclose what a preview actually returns or that the question parameter is only echoed back; the schema covers that part instead.

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 marketing-heavy and repetitive, saying 'no key' and 'FREE preview' multiple times with promotional phrasing like '✅' and 'Try one of the sample questions now.' It front-loads a call-to-action rather than a functional definition, and much of the text does not earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what a preview call returns, but it never does. It leaves ambiguity about whether sample questions are answered with real data, how slug routing works beyond the schema note, and how this differs from the paid data_session_query 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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema with descriptions for slug and question, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond sample questions, keeping this at the baseline score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the relevant listing ('ghsawatch: package dependency vulnerabilities + malicious-package advisories') and signals a free preview, but it never states in a direct verb phrase what the tool actually does or returns. It relies on the tool name and annotation title ('Preview Data Listing (Free)') to convey the core action.

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 says 'call this now' and emphasizes 'no API key needed' and 'FREE preview,' which implies a try-before-paying use case. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool (e.g., data_session_query) should be used for actual paid queries.

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

All Dependency Vulnerability Tracker — package security advisories ($0.01/query) 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

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap in purpose: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all describe payment/funding steps, while a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action both provide guidance. The data_preview/data_session_query distinction is understandable, but the repeated listing text and mixed marketplace tools create ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case and data_session_* forms a clear prefix, but conventions mix: noun-first names like a2awire_guide and data_preview sit alongside verb-first names like check_earnings and discover_agents. Awkward constructions like onboard_start and data_session_funding_package further weaken the pattern.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools the count is only slightly above the ideal range and could be reasonable for a platform server. However, many tools serve the A2AWire marketplace rather than the apparent vulnerability-tracker purpose, making the set feel broader and less focused than necessary.

Completeness2/5

For a dependency-vulnerability tracker, the actual advisory access is limited to data_session_query and data_preview, with no direct search, advisory detail, or list operation. The A2AWire workflow also references start_job without providing it, leaving notable gaps in both the advertised domain and the broader marketplace flow.

Resources

Need Help?