Skip to main content
Glama

NPMScan

by com.npmscan

Get a specific npm package version

get_package_version
Read-only

Fetch registry metadata for one exact version of a package (dependencies, install scripts, tarball) AND check that exact version against OSV.dev for known vulnerabilities — isVulnerable/highestSeverity give a direct answer, and each finding includes severity, a summary, and the fixedVersion to upgrade to. Use this to check a version pinned in a lockfile rather than the latest release.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesExact npm package name
versionYesExact version string, e.g. "4.17.21"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
shasumYes
licenseYes
scriptsYes
tarballYes
versionYes
deprecatedYes
npmscanUrlYes
descriptionYes
dependenciesYes
isVulnerableYes
highestSeverityYes
vulnerabilitiesYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / highestSeverity
      Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / isVulnerable
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / vulnerabilities
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "aliases": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "fixedVersion": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "id": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "npmscanUrl": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "publishedAt": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "severity": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "summary": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "id",
+      "summary",
+      "severity",
+      "aliases",
+      "publishedAt",
+      "fixedVersion",
+      "npmscanUrl"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "version",
-  "description",
-  "license",
-  "dependencies",
-  "scripts",
-  "deprecated",
-  "tarball",
-  "shasum",
-  "npmscanUrl"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "version",
+  "description",
+  "license",
+  "dependencies",
+  "scripts",
+  "deprecated",
+  "tarball",
+  "shasum",
+  "npmscanUrl",
+  "isVulnerable",
+  "highestSeverity",
+  "vulnerabilities"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "dependencies": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "deprecated": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "license": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "npmscanUrl": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scripts": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "shasum": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "tarball": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "version": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "name",
+    "version",
+    "description",
+    "license",
+    "dependencies",
+    "scripts",
+    "deprecated",
+    "tarball",
+    "shasum",
+    "npmscanUrl"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses compound behavior: metadata fetch plus vulnerability check, and specifies the response fields (isVulnerable/highestSeverity, severity, summary, fixedVersion). It correctly aligns with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Two sentences carry the full purpose, usage, and output meaning with no filler. The operation is front-loaded before the usage guidance.

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 annotations, complete input schema, and an output schema, the description covers what remains: when to use it, what data it returns, and how findings are represented. Nothing needed for a correct call is missing.

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 already fully documents name and version, including length constraints and an example. The description repeats 'exact version' but adds no new semantic detail for either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the exact operation: fetch registry metadata for one package version and check it against OSV.dev. It makes the resource ('one exact version of a package') and the dual behavior explicit, and separates this tool from any latest-release package lookup.

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 a direct usage directive: use this for a version pinned in a lockfile rather than the latest release. It lacks a named alternative tool, so it doesn't fully route the agent to a sibling, but the when/when-not guidance is clear.

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

All NPMScan 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct part of the supply-chain lifecycle, and the detailed descriptions include explicit cross-references that reduce misselection. The main ambiguity is among the vulnerability-lookup tools—especially get_latest_advisories and get_cve, which both accept CVE IDs, and query_vulnerabilities versus batch_query_vulnerabilities, which differ mainly in input shape.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool name uses lowercase snake_case with a leading imperative verb or verb phrase: analyze_, audit_, batch_query_, check_, compare_, diff_, get_, prioritize_, query_, search_, and suggest_. The check_* tools form a consistent sub-family, and there are no camelCase or noun-only strays.

Tool Count4/5

18 tools is on the high side, so the server feels slightly heavy rather than lean. However, the domain is broad enough that each tool occupies a meaningful workflow step—metadata lookup, vulnerability querying, transitive analysis, license/maintainer/provenance checks, repo auditing, diffing, and remediation—so the count is still reasonable for a comprehensive npm security server.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full npm supply-chain audit workflow: discovery, exact-version and lockfile vulnerability checks, transitive dependency resolution, install-script deep scans, license compliance, maintainer and provenance history, repo-level audits, dependency diffs, remediation prioritization, and alternative suggestions. There are no obvious dead ends, and the tools consistently point to natural follow-up actions.

Resources