Is the internet OK?

Am I affected?

check_stack

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks a project's dependencies and a person's apps. Every package with an exact version (as a lockfile pins it) is checked against every known flaw (OSV.dev, CISA's exploited list), and the incidents this site explains come first; a range, no version, or an app is only compared with those incidents. Says the answer on the site's scale (yes, mostly, kind-of, no; unknown when no exact version was sent), which packages to update and to which version. Give packages, product ids, or the text of a lockfile (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, yarn.lock, requirements.txt, composer.lock; with filename, any of 30+ formats: Cargo.lock, go.mod, uv.lock, Gemfile.lock...). For a public GitHub repo, check_repo reads every lockfile itself. Only names and versions reach the flaw database; nothing about who asked is stored.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`full`	No	Also every flaw of every package, minor ones included. Without it: the answer, what to update and why.
`filename`	No	The lockfile's file name (Cargo.lock, go.mod, uv.lock...): reads it with the repo check's own readers, which also tell dev dependencies apart.
`lockfile`	No	The whole text of a lockfile or manifest.
`packages`	No
`products`	No	Product ids people install: chrome, firefox, safari, edge, windows, macos, ios, android, linux, office, whatsapp, zoom, plex, wordpress, php, nodejs, python, openssl, nginx, apache-httpd, ivanti-connect-secure, pan-os, fortimail, fortios, cisco-asa, tidb-cloud.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / filename

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The lockfile's file name (Cargo.lock, go.mod, uv.lock...): reads it with the repo check's own readers, which also tell dev dependencies apart.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / full

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Also every flaw of every package, minor ones included. Without it: the answer, what to update and why.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the description rightly spends its words elsewhere: the scoring scale (yes/mostly/kind-of/no/unknown), the exact-version precondition for 'unknown', what gets returned (which packages to update and to which version), and a privacy guarantee that only names and versions reach the flaw database. That is genuine context beyond the annotations; only rate limits/response shape are untouched.

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?

Purpose and matching semantics are front-loaded, and nearly every clause carries information (input formats, scoring scale, sibling routing, privacy). The single dense paragraph with semicolon-chained clauses makes it harder to scan than it needs to be, though little is actually wasted.

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?

For a 5-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies what an agent needs to call it correctly: three alternative input modes, accepted formats, the meaning of the returned verdict scale, and the mutation/privacy profile. Nothing essential is left to inference.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is already 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning on top by explaining that an exact pinned version triggers full flaw matching while a range or missing version is only compared against explained incidents, and by noting that a lockfile filename engages the repo check's readers, which separate dev dependencies.

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 opens with a concrete verb and scope ('Checks a project's dependencies and a person's apps') and immediately explains the matching logic (exact-version packages vs. every known flaw; ranges/apps vs. incidents only). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling check_repo, which handles public GitHub repos.

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?

It tells the agent exactly what to supply (packages, product ids, or the raw text of a lockfile, with a list of accepted lockfile names) and routes the public-repo case to check_repo instead. Missing only an explicit statement of when this tool is not appropriate beyond that one routing case.

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

All Is the internet OK? tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?