DataNexus MCP

security_fetch_package_risk_brief

Read-onlyIdempotent

Single SHIP/CAUTION/BLOCK verdict for any package. Combines CVEs, licence, maintainer health, and transitive count in one call. Uses OSV.dev, deps.dev, PyPI, and npm registry — data refreshed on each call. Returns verdict (SHIP/CAUTION/BLOCK), critical_cve_count, high_cve_count, licence_risk, maintainer_health, transitive_count, resolved_version, upstream_status, and reasoning. Rate limit: 30/minute. No auth required. For security engineers performing pre-inclusion package review. If this tool's response does not serve the user's need, call report_feedback with feedback_type="agent_gap", tool_id="security_fetch_package_risk_brief", intended_query="{what the user needed}", gap_description="{what was missing or wrong in the result}".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`version`	No	Package version e.g. 2.28.0. Required.
`ecosystem`	Yes	Package ecosystem: npm, pypi, cargo, go, maven. Required.
`package_name`	Yes	Package name e.g. requests. Required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description adds that data is refreshed on each call, states a rate limit of 30/minute, notes no authentication required, and lists the exact return fields. 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?

The description is compact at about four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It covers key details without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description lists all key return fields and data sources. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand tool behavior and output, missing only a note on how to interpret the verdict.

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%, so parameters are fully described. The description adds minimal extra meaning; however, it incorrectly states the version parameter as 'Required.' (schema marks it optional), causing a slight inconsistency.

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 it returns a single SHIP/CAUTION/BLOCK verdict for any package, combining CVEs, license, maintainer health, and transitive count. It specifies the data sources (OSV.dev, deps.dev, PyPI, npm registry) and distinguishes itself from sibling security tools by offering a consolidated risk brief rather than individual vulnerability or license checks.

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 explicitly targets 'security engineers performing pre-inclusion package review,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly list when to avoid using the tool or suggest alternatives, but the niche is well-defined.

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?