YourAITools MCP Hub

PkgGuard: Check one package version

check_package

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks one package version (npm, PyPI, Go, crates.io, Packagist, RubyGems, Maven, NuGet) against OSV.dev: advisory ids, severity, CVSS, fixed-in versions and malicious flags. Free tier: 30 calls/day per IP with full results, then $0.001 per call in USDC over x402 (/v1/package).

[PkgGuard via YourAITools MCP Hub] Free tier: same as PkgGuard's own MCP server (call without payment and without tier). Paid: package $0.001 per call, with a credits key (Authorization: Bearer yatc_...) or x402 (USDC; the hub returns the payment terms). Failed tool calls aren't charged: credits are refunded automatically and x402 payments only settle on success.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "check_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Package name, e.g. lodash
`tier`	No	Paid tier: package $0.001. Omit tier (with no credits key or x402 payment) to use the free tier.
`version`	Yes	Exact version, e.g. 4.17.15
`ecosystem`	No	One of npm, PyPI, Go, crates.io, Packagist, RubyGems, Maven, NuGet, Pub, Hex (default npm)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 30, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / ecosystem / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "npm"
+]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / name / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "lodash"
+]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / version / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "4.17.15"
+]
```
First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations by disclosing a concrete rate limit (30 calls/day per IP), per-call pricing ($0.001 USDC), accepted auth mechanisms (credits key or x402), and refund behavior on failure. Those are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before spending money or retrying.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first sentence is well front-loaded and information-dense, but the second paragraph largely restates the free/paid terms already given ('Free tier: same as...', pricing repeated). Roughly half the text is billing boilerplate rather than tool semantics.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming what comes back: advisory ids, severity, CVSS, fixed-in versions and malicious flags. Combined with pricing and tier rules, an agent has enough to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 adds little parameter-level detail. It is also slightly out of sync with the schema: the prose lists eight ecosystems while the schema's enum description lists ten (Pub and Hex are omitted), which could mislead on valid values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Checks one package version') and enumerates the supported ecosystems plus the backing data source (OSV.dev), so the agent knows exactly what is being validated. The 'one package version' scope implicitly separates it from tree-level siblings like scan_dependencies, but no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the scoping phrase 'one package version', and the free/paid tiers give the agent a decision input, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of scan_dependencies when...' routing guidance. The bulk of the prose is commercial rather than selection-oriented.

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

All YourAITools MCP Hub tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?