YourAITools MCP Hub

PkgGuard: Scan dependencies for vulnerabilities

scan_dependencies

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks a package.json, lockfile, requirements.txt, go.mod, Cargo.lock, poetry.lock or composer.lock (or a list of packages) against OSV.dev for known vulnerabilities and confirmed-malicious packages. Returns per-package advisory ids (CVE/GHSA/MAL), severity, CVSS and fixed-in versions. Free tier: 30 calls/day per IP with full results, up to 100 packages; then $0.003 per scan (up to 500) in USDC over x402 (/v1/scan). Not for: code you wrote yourself (it checks published packages only) or secrets in files (use scan_for_leaks).

[PkgGuard via YourAITools MCP Hub] Free tier: same as PkgGuard's own MCP server (call without payment and without tier). Paid: scan $0.003 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

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "scan_dependencies"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tier`	No	Paid tier: scan $0.003. Omit tier (with no credits key or x402 payment) to use the free tier.
`type`	No	(paid calls only)
`filename`	No	Optional file name, helps type detection
`manifest`	No	Manifest or lockfile contents (package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, Pipfile.lock, poetry.lock, go.mod, Cargo.lock, composer.lock)
`packages`	No	Alternative to manifest: [{ecosystem, name, version}], up to 500
`include_dev`	No	Include devDependencies (default true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 30, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / filename / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "package.json"
+]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / manifest / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "{\"dependencies\":{\"lodash\":\"4.17.15\",\"minimist\":\"1.2.5\"}}"
+]
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / packages / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```
Changed3 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / packages / items / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +true
```
- addedInput schema / properties / packages / items / description
```
Added value: +"One package: name, version and ecosystem."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / packages / items / properties
```
Added value: +{
+  "ecosystem": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "name": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "version": {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
```
First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive and the description is fully consistent with that. Beyond annotations it adds real operational context: 30 calls/day per IP, 100-package free cap vs 500 paid, per-call price, and that failed calls are not charged (credit refunds, x402 settles only on success).

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?

Purpose, return shape, and exclusions are front-loaded before the pricing boilerplate, which is the right order. However the free/paid pricing facts are stated twice (once inline, once in the hub footer), which costs some economy without adding information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description specifies the return payload (per-package advisory ids, severity, CVSS, fixed-in versions). With six mostly-optional parameters, clear input alternatives, and pricing/auth terms all covered, nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains tier/type/manifest/packages/include_dev. The description still adds meaning the schema lacks: the free-tier package cap of 100 versus 500 paid, and the manifest-or-package-list dichotomy that governs which input path to choose.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: checks manifests/lockfiles or a package list against OSV.dev for known vulnerabilities and confirmed-malicious packages. It enumerates the supported file types and even names the sibling it is not (scan_for_leaks), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit exclusions are given: not for first-party code and not for secrets (route to scan_for_leaks instead). It also spells out the free-vs-paid decision path (omit tier with no key → free; tier=scan for paid) and the limits that select between them.

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?