NPMScan

Batch query known vulnerabilities

batch_query_vulnerabilities

Read-only

Query OSV.dev for known vulnerabilities across a whole npm dependency inventory at once: either pass a flat {packages:[...]} list, or paste raw package.json / lockfile / CycloneDX JSON / SPDX JSON content via content. The tool normalizes npm dependencies first, then chunk-queries OSV behind the scenes so large SBOMs don't stop at the upstream 100-package batch limit. Each finding includes severity, a summary, CVE aliases, and the fixed version — not just a bare advisory ID — so a dependency audit answer doesn't need a follow-up call per flagged package.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	No	Raw dependency inventory content: package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, CycloneDX JSON, or SPDX JSON. Use this OR `packages`, not both.
`packages`	No	Explicit package list (1-1000 items). Use this OR `content`, not both.
`includeDevDependencies`	No	Ignored when using `packages`; only applies when `content` is a manifest/lockfile format that distinguishes dev dependencies.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`results`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`inputFormat`	No
`ignoredCount`	No
`enrichmentNote`	No
`queryFailureCount`	No
`parsedPackageCount`	No
`totalVulnerabilities`	Yes
`packagesWithVulnerabilities`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: input normalization, chunked background queries, the 100-package upstream limit, and that each finding contains severity, summary, CVE aliases, and fixed version. No contradictions with the annotations exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences with no wasted words: the first fronts the core purpose and input options, the second explains the batch behavior, and the third specifies return-value richness. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition of schema content.

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 annotations, full parameter descriptions, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers both input modes, clarifies the batch limit workaround, and describes what the results contain without needing to restate the output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their mutual exclusivity. The description reinforces the distinction between packages and content and adds useful output context, but it does not substantially extend parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Query OSV.dev for known vulnerabilities across a whole npm dependency inventory at once') and clearly signals batch behavior, distinguishing it from the sibling query_vulnerabilities tool. It also enumerates the two input modes, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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 frames when to use the tool: when auditing a whole dependency inventory or a large SBOM, and it explains that chunking avoids the upstream 100-package limit. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like query_vulnerabilities or state when the non-batch variant would be preferable, so the guidance stops just short of full exclusion criteria.

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

All NPMScan 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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct workflow—install script analysis, transitive dependency resolution, batch OSV queries, provenance verification, CVE lookup, advisory browsing, package metadata, exact-version checks, single-package vuln checks, and search. The only mild overlap is that several get_/query_ tools return vulnerability data, but the descriptions clearly delineate when to use each.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_package, query_vulnerabilities, analyze_transitive_dependencies, check_package_provenance, etc. There are no mixed casing styles or vague verbs, making the set highly predictable.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for an npm security scanning server. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct facet of the domain without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers package discovery, metadata, exact-version vulnerability checks, batch scanning, transitive graph analysis, install-script heuristics, provenance, advisories, and CVE enrichment. Minor gaps remain—e.g. no full tarball code review and maintainer-history red flags are explicitly out of scope—but core agent workflows are covered.

Resources

Need Help?