Skip to main content
Glama

MCPFax Dev Package Intelligence

by com.mcpscores

Known vulnerabilities for a package

package_vulnerabilities

Known security advisories for a package from OSV, the open advisory database. Returns advisory ids, severity, summary and the versions that fix each one. Pass 'version' to ask only about the version you are about to install; omit it to see advisories affecting any version. Use before pinning a dependency or when auditing a lockfile. Costs $0.008 USDC per call via x402 on Base.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPackage name.
versionNoOptional exact version, e.g. '4.17.20'. Narrows advisories to that version.
ecosystemYesOne of 'npm', 'pypi', 'crates'.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / ecosystem / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "npm"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "lodash"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / version / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "4.17.20"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source, return fields, version-filtering behavior, and even cost per call via x402 on Base. This is strong transparency, though it does not cover error cases, authentication, or rate limits.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences with no filler. It leads with the core purpose and output, then gives parameter guidance, use context, and cost. Every sentence adds distinct information that an agent needs.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is admirably complete: it explains what is returned, how to narrow results, when to use it, and what it costs. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool based on the description alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining the version parameter's behavior with 'Pass "version" to ask only about the version you are about to install; omit it to see advisories affecting any version.' This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool returns known security advisories for a package from OSV, including advisory IDs, severity, summary, and fixing versions. It names the resource (package vulnerabilities) and the specific data source, making it distinct from general package info or audit tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit use cases: 'Use before pinning a dependency or when auditing a lockfile.' It also explains when to pass version vs omit it. It does not explicitly name alternatives among siblings or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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

All MCPFax Dev Package Intelligence toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

package_audit overlaps with package_info and package_vulnerabilities because it bundles their data, but the descriptions clearly frame audit as the combined decision-oriented call and the others as individual fact or advisory lookups. demand_report and request_data are also distinct: one is aggregate market demand, the other is a single request submission.

Naming Consistency4/5

Three tools share the package_ prefix with descriptive suffixes (audit, info, vulnerabilities), while demand_report and request_data cover the demand-side features without the prefix. All names are snake_case and readable, so the deviation is minor rather than chaotic.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is a well-scoped size for a package intelligence server. Each tool maps to a meaningful workflow: package facts, vulnerabilities, a composite audit, individual data requests, and an aggregate demand report.

Completeness5/5

The package workflow is covered end-to-end: check package info, check advisories, and get a combined audit verdict before adding or pinning a dependency. The demand side also feels complete with both individual request_data and the aggregated demand_report.

Resources