Cross-ecosystem vulnerability advisory lookup via OSV.dev. Given an ecosystem (PyPI, npm, Go, crates.io, Maven, NuGet, RubyGems, Packagist, etc) and a package name (optional version), returns advisories affecting that package. License: Apache 2.0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name | |
| version | No | Optional package version | |
| ecosystem | Yes | OSV ecosystem identifier (PyPI, npm, Go, crates.io, etc) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it returns advisories and the license. No disclosure of rate limits, error handling, auth requirements, or side effects.
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?
Three concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and ecosystem examples.
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?
No output schema; description does not specify structure of returned advisories (e.g., fields like advisory ID, summary). Tool complexity is low, but completeness is weak for a lookup tool.
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?
Adds value beyond schema by listing example ecosystems and clarifying version as optional. Schema already provides parameter descriptions.
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?
Clearly states it is a cross-ecosystem vulnerability advisory lookup via OSV.dev, lists supported ecosystems, and specifies inputs and outputs. Distinguishes from sibling get_osv_advisory_by_id.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_osv_advisory_by_id. Usage is implied but not formally stated.
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 security/vulnerability tools (check_ai_supply_chain_risk, get_cve_record, get_osv_advisory_by_id, get_osv_advisory_for_package) have overlapping purposes, making it potentially confusing to choose the right one. Other tools are more distinct, but the ambiguity in this cluster lowers the score.
All names are snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern, but the verbs are inconsistent (check, get, list, lookup, query, register, route, search, submit, whats_new). Some tools use 'get' while others use 'check' for similar retrieval actions, and 'whats_new' does not fit the verb_noun pattern.
With 27 tools, the count exceeds the 25 threshold for 'too many', even though the broad scope spans many domains. The sheer number makes the server feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The server covers a wide range of data domains, but notable gaps exist: no management of watch subscriptions (only register), no CVE search, and no model search. Write operations are minimal, leaving some workflows incomplete.
