query_by_commitFind vulnerabilities affecting a specific source-repository git commit via OSV.dev. Useful when you have a pinned commit hash rather than a released version. Returns the same compact vuln summary array. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commit | Yes | A git commit hash, e.g. "6879efc2c1596d11a6a6ad296f80063b558d5e0f". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "commit": "6879efc2c1596d11a6a6ad296f80063b558d5e0f"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds 'Keyless' (no auth) and mentions return format ('same compact vuln summary array'), which is useful but not essential given annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. Description provides enough context (use case, return format, keyless) to use effectively. Annotations cover behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter 'commit' with 100% schema description coverage. Description does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema, but the schema alone is sufficient. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb (find), resource (vulnerabilities affecting a specific commit), and method (via OSV.dev). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the use case of 'pinned commit hash' versus 'released version'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you have a pinned commit hash rather than a released version'), providing clear context for selection among siblings. However, no explicit when-not or alternative tool names are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar, as are the suite of polymarket_* tools. While descriptions help differentiate, an agent may struggle to choose the correct one without careful reading.
All tool names use snake_case, but they mix verb-first patterns (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim) with noun-first patterns (bet_research, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback). This inconsistency makes it harder to guess tool names by convention.
35 tools is on the high side but not unreasonable for a platform covering vulnerability queries, data retrieval, prediction markets, and utilities. However, the server name 'Osv' suggests a narrow focus, making the large count feel bloated.
The tool set covers a wide range of operations: querying data, comparing entities, managing user data, monitoring subscriptions, and even onboarding. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct API for updating user profiles), but overall it is well-rounded for its domain.