npmVulnerabilities
Security analysis
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packages | Yes | Package names array | |
| ignoreCache | No | Bypass cache |
xpay✦ DevTools Collection
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Security analysis' says nothing about whether the tool is read-only, what external resources it accesses, side effects, authentication needs, or return value structure. This is critically uninformative.
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 under-specified rather than concise. It consists of only two words, providing no structure, headings, or useful detail. A concise description should still contain essential information to guide the agent; this one does not.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should clearly explain what the tool returns and any behavioral effects. It does neither. The tool appears to be a security analysis utility, but no behavior or outcome is documented, making it completely inadequate for an AI agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'packages' and 'ignoreCache' already described. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter documentation, but the description offers no enhancements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Security analysis' is extremely vague and does not state what the tool does with npm packages. It lacks a clear verb and resource, and it fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like check_security or npmQuality. It is barely more informative than the tool name itself.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it does not reference sibling tools. A two-word description provides no usability context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools have overlapping or ambiguous purposes that could confuse an agent. For example, analyze_code, analyze_patterns, and analyze_design_patterns all involve code analysis with unclear boundaries, while check_deceptive_patterns and check_placeholders seem like subsets of analyze_code. The NPM tools form a coherent group but are distinct from the rest, creating a fragmented toolset.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are highly inconsistent across the toolset. Some tools use snake_case (e.g., analyze_code, execute_code), others use camelCase (e.g., npmAlternatives, npmChangelogAnalysis), and there are mixed styles like query-docs with hyphens. The NPM tools follow a consistent npmPrefix pattern internally, but this is not applied to other tools, leading to overall chaos.
Tool Count2/5
With 39 tools, this server is overloaded for a 'DevTools Collection' scope. The count feels excessive, as many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple analysis tools) or logically grouped. While the NPM tools are numerous but focused, the overall set lacks cohesion, making it cumbersome for an agent to navigate and select appropriate tools efficiently.
Completeness3/5
The toolset covers a broad range of development tasks, including code analysis, execution, documentation, and package management, but there are notable gaps. For example, there is no tool for code generation or refactoring, and the Microsoft and NPM tools are well-covered but isolated from other functionalities. The surface is extensive but not fully integrated, with some dead ends in workflow transitions.