Skip to main content
Glama

netcafe-live-data

by com.ainetcafe

Check a package for known vulnerabilities

check_vulns
Read-onlyIdempotent

Query OSV.dev for known CVE/GHSA vulnerabilities affecting a package (optionally a specific version), and get the versions they were fixed in. Use it when reviewing dependencies or a lockfile. Covers npm, PyPI, crates.io, Go, Maven, NuGet and Packagist.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPackage name.
versionNoExact version to check, e.g. "4.17.15". Omit to list all known vulns for the package.
ecosystemNonpm (default) | pypi | crates | go | maven | nuget | packagist

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by naming the external service (OSV.dev), listing supported ecosystems, and noting optional version filtering. This helps set expectations for network dependency and scope, even though rate limits or failure modes are not mentioned.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, then usage guidance and ecosystem list. No wasted words.

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 description covers the tool's core function, usage context, and scope. With an output schema present and good annotations, this is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the parameters clearly (e.g., version optional, ecosystem default). The description adds minimal extra meaning, mostly clarifying vulnerability types (CVE/GHSA) and that fixed versions are returned, which is more about output than parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: query OSV.dev for known CVE/GHSA vulnerabilities affecting a package, and get the versions they were fixed in. It uses a specific verb + resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like package_info.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use it when reviewing dependencies or a lockfile.' It also states the supported ecosystems, giving practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., package_info) or mention when not to use.

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

All netcafe-live-data toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly separated by domain, but the cluster of domain-related tools (domain_check, ssl_check, china_reachability) could be confused by an agent looking for a generic 'check this domain' operation. The descriptions help clarify each one's specific focus, so overall ambiguity is low.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use a verb-first pattern (check_vulns, get_weather, transpile_sql), while others use a noun-first pattern (domain_check, stock_quote, ip_lookup). Verbs are also inconsistent (check, get, lookup, transpile), and some names are pure noun phrases (exchange_rate, package_info). This lack of a uniform pattern makes the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count4/5

At 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range and each tool has a distinct purpose. The broad scope makes the set feel somewhat unfocused, but there is no redundancy or excessive bloat.

Completeness3/5

The server intends to provide live data, but coverage is shallow within each category. For example, weather only gives current conditions and a short forecast, package tools only have info and vulnerabilities, and there is no historical data for stocks. The overall domain is vague, so significant gaps exist for a general-purpose live-data server.

Resources