dependency-trust

Get Dependencies

get_dependencies

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the resolved dependency graph for one package version.

Returns the full resolved dependency graph (direct and indirect) for a version. Each node has the dependency's exact version and its relation (SELF / DIRECT / INDIRECT). Use it to reason about transitive dependencies and supply chain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`system`	Yes	Package ecosystem.
`package`	Yes	Package name, raw and unencoded (the gateway URL-encodes it). Use scoped or namespaced names as-is, e.g. npm '@angular/core', Maven 'group:artifact'.
`version`	Yes	Exact version string, e.g. '18.2.0'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 5, 2026
- changedOutput schema / (root)
```
Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedAug 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / system / enum

Added value: +[
+  "npm",
+  "pypi",
+  "go",
+  "maven",
+  "cargo",
+  "nuget",
+  "rubygems"
+]

First observedAug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it returns the full resolved graph, each node's exact version, and the SELF / DIRECT / INDIRECT relation, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the output shape.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and a use-case sentence. There is minor redundancy in repeating 'resolved dependency graph' in the first two sentences, but overall every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is well-specified given the rich annotations, complete parameter schemas, and presence of an output schema. The description covers scope, graph contents, relation semantics, and intended use, leaving no critical gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not need to restate them and adds no additional parameter-level detail, matching the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get the resolved dependency graph for one package version.' It clearly distinguishes itself from package metadata tools by focusing on the dependency graph and transitive relationships, and it names the exact output relation types (SELF / DIRECT / INDIRECT).

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 guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use it to reason about transitive dependencies and supply chain.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

All dependency-trust tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?