Audit a whole dependency manifest for known vulnerabilities in one call. Paste a package.json (as 'manifest'), or pass a 'dependencies' array of {name, version} objects. Returns per-package findings and a summary. Ecosystem defaults to npm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| manifest | No | Raw package.json contents | |
| ecosystem | No | Default npm | |
| dependencies | No | [{name, version}] entries |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format (per-package findings and a summary) but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Basic transparency is present but could be enhanced.
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 sentences, front-loaded main purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal output details ('per-package findings and a summary'). It does not specify format or limits, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by contextualizing parameters (e.g., 'paste a package.json' for manifest, 'defaults to npm' for ecosystem). This clarifies usage beyond schema 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?
The description clearly states the tool audits a dependency manifest for vulnerabilities, using specific verbs and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like cve_lookup, but the purpose is distinct and clear.
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?
Provides clear usage instructions (paste package.json or pass dependencies array, ecosystem default) but lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like cve_lookup or package_vulnerabilities.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct security vulnerability task: scanning a manifest, looking up a specific CVE, or listing package vulnerabilities. No overlap in purpose.
All use snake_case but pattern varies: 'audit_dependencies' is verb_noun, 'cve_lookup' is noun_verb, 'package_vulnerabilities' is noun_noun. Descriptive but inconsistent.
Three tools cover the core vulnerability intelligence needs without excess. Well-scoped for the server's purpose.
Covers manifest scanning, CVE lookup, and package vulnerabilities. Minor gaps like batch operations or version range checks, but sufficient for typical use.