DataNexus MCP

security_detect_typosquatting

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect typosquatting attacks against a package name. Compares using Damerau-Levenshtein distance ≤ 2 against top-10,000 packages. Returns similar_packages with anomaly scores, and a SUSPICIOUS or CLEAN verdict. Uses PyPI and npm download stats stored in Redis. Cold-start fetch on first call (≤ 30s). Rate limit: 60/minute. No auth required. For security engineers auditing supply-chain package names before inclusion. If this tool's response does not serve the user's need, call report_feedback with feedback_type="agent_gap", tool_id="security_detect_typosquatting", intended_query="{what the user needed}", gap_description="{what was missing or wrong in the result}".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ecosystem`	Yes	Package ecosystem: npm, pypi, cargo, go. Required.
`package_name`	Yes	Package name e.g. requests. Required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, but description adds cold-start fetch time (≤30s), rate limit (60/min), no auth requirements, and storage details (PyPI/npm stats in Redis). No contradictions with annotations.

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 clear and well-organized, covering action, algorithm, output, infrastructure, limitations, and fallback. The feedback instruction adds length but is valuable. Could be slightly more concise by merging some sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers behavior, rate limits, auth, cold start, and intended use case. Minor gaps: does not explain behavior for packages not in top-10k or error handling for unsupported ecosystems (schema already restricts). Overall sufficient for an agent to 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (package_name and ecosystem with enum). Description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides, but the overall tool operation is contextualized.

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?

Clearly states it detects typosquatting attacks, specifies the algorithm (Damerau-Levenshtein distance ≤ 2), scope (top-10,000 packages), and output (similar_packages with scores and verdict). Distinguishes from sibling frontend_security_detect_typosquatting by targeting supply-chain security engineers.

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?

Explicitly states target users ('security engineers auditing supply-chain package names before inclusion') and provides a feedback mechanism if the tool doesn't serve the user's need. Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but context is clear.

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?