DataNexus MCP

security_audit_sbom_continuous

Destructive

Persistent SBOM watch. Register once, check anytime for new CVEs affecting your dependency snapshot. Silent permanent watch — CycloneDX and SPDX supported. Uses OSV.dev for vulnerability lookup, Redis for persistence with 90-day TTL. Supports CycloneDX 1.4/1.5 and SPDX 2.3 JSON. Input size limit: 500 KB. Returns go_no_go signal on register; new_findings on check. Rate limit: 10/minute. No auth required. For DevSecOps teams monitoring production dependency exposure. If this tool's response does not serve the user's need, call report_feedback with feedback_type="agent_gap", tool_id="security_audit_sbom_continuous", intended_query="{what the user needed}", gap_description="{what was missing or wrong in the result}".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sbom`	Yes	CycloneDX or SPDX SBOM as JSON string. Required for register action.
`action`	Yes	Action: register, check, or deregister the SBOM watch. Required.
`watch_id`	Yes	Unique watch identifier for this SBOM watch. Required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: silent permanent watch, uses OSV.dev and Redis, 90-day TTL, input size limit 500 KB, rate limit 10/min, no auth required. None of this contradicts annotations; destructiveHint=true aligns with deregister action.

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?

Description is informative but somewhat lengthy; front-loads the main purpose. Could be slightly trimmed, but every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (persistent watch, multiple actions, constraints), the description covers return signals, limitations, and use case. Output schema exists, so return format is sufficient.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds meaningful context: sbom is only required for register, watch_id should be unique, and actions are register/check/deregister.

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: 'Persistent SBOM watch. Register once, check anytime for new CVEs.' It specifies the verb 'watch' and distinguishes from one-time scans and license checks among siblings.

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?

The description provides clear context: 'For DevSecOps teams monitoring production dependency exposure.' It also includes a note on calling report_feedback if inadequate. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool vs alternatives.

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

All DataNexus MCP tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (compliance, domain, frontend_security, etc.) with distinct purposes. Minor overlap exists between frontend_security_detect_typosquatting and security_detect_typosquatting, but descriptions clarify the different scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. Irregularities like 'fetch' vs 'audit' and two 'detect_typosquatting' tools exist, but overall naming is predictable within domains.

Tool Count3/5

55 tools is high for a single server given the breadth of domains. Some redundancy (e.g., two typosquatting tools) suggests possible trimming, but the count is justified by the wide coverage.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key operations across domains like compliance, domain, security, legal, and nonprofit. Minor gaps exist, such as limited frontend audit beyond package.json and no general-purpose code scanning.

Resources

Need Help?