dependency-trust

Get Package Version

get_package_version

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get license, security advisories, and source links for one package version.

Returns detailed metadata for a single version: SPDX licenses, security advisoryKeys (known vulnerabilities), homepage/issue-tracker/source-repo links, registries, publish date, and deprecation status. Pass any advisoryKey returned here to get_advisory for the vulnerability details.

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by naming the returned fields, including SPDX licenses, advisoryKeys, source links, publish date, and deprecation status, and it discloses that advisoryKeys represent known vulnerabilities.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The first sentence states the outcome, the second adds concrete return-field details, and the final sentence gives a routing instruction. There is little redundancy, and each 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?

Given an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly. It explains what metadata is returned, how to interpret advisoryKeys, and where to go next for vulnerability details. No critical usage context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add input parameter semantics beyond the schema; the schema already explains ecosystem, raw package names, and exact version formatting. The description adds value for output semantics, but not for the parameters themselves.

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 verb and resource: 'Get license, security advisories, and source links for one package version.' It further distinguishes itself by emphasizing 'single version' metadata, making it clear this tool is version-scoped rather than package-level. The follow-up pointer to get_advisory also clarifies its role in the workflow.

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 clearly says to pass an advisoryKey to get_advisory for vulnerability details, giving an explicit next-step usage condition. It does not explicitly contrast with get_package or get_dependencies, but the 'single version' focus and detailed metadata list imply the appropriate scope of use.

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?