Check that a package, module or DOI exists before an agent installs, imports or cites it.
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool targets a distinct scenario: verifying a single identifier, scanning an install command, checking a dependency manifest, and monitoring for verdict changes. The overlap between command and manifest checks is mitigated by clear trigger context (before running vs. after writing).
All tools share the hallux_ prefix and snake_case, but there is a minor inconsistency: hallux_check is a bare verb while hallux_check_command and hallux_check_manifest add an object, and hallux_watch uses a different verb. The pattern is still predictable enough for an agent to infer function from name.
Four tools cover the core workflow of validating identifiers, commands, manifests, and monitoring changes. This is well-scoped for a narrow, specialized server and comfortably within the ideal 3-15 tool range.
The set covers checking, command screening, manifest scanning, and watching, but lacks an unwatch or listing mechanism to manage registered watches. This is a minor operational gap that does not obstruct the primary dependency-safety workflow.
Does this identifier actually exist? Call before acting on any name you recalled rather than read: a package to install, a module to import, a DOI to cite.
Returns one of: exists, deprecated, absent, phantom, squat, unknown.
exists - proceed
deprecated - proceed, but use successor
absent - not in the registry. Do not proceed
phantom - does not exist AND models repeatedly invent it. Do not proceed
squat - was invented by models, then registered by someone. Treat as hostile
unknown - could not verify. Never treat this as permission
Live namespaces: cite.doi, pkg.crates, pkg.go, pkg.maven, pkg.npm, pkg.nuget, pkg.pypi. An unsupported namespace returns unknown, never an error, so it is safe to ask.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifiers | Yes | Up to 100 identifiers. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| blocked | No | The absent, phantom and squat results. |
| checked | No | How many identifiers were checked. |
| results | Yes | Every result, in input order. |
| decision | Yes | BLOCK: do not proceed. REVIEW: something could not be verified. PROCEED: every identifier exists. NOTHING_TO_CHECK: no identifier was recognised. |
| unverified | No | The unknown results. |
| safeToProceed | Yes | False whenever anything was blocked. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully discloses the return classification (exists, deprecated, absent, phantom, squat, unknown) and the operational meaning of each value, including that unknown must never be treated as permission. It also states that unsupported namespaces return unknown rather than an error. This goes well beyond the readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, followed by return-value semantics in an easily scannable list, then namespace coverage. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only checking tool with a rich output schema, the description covers purpose, when to call, return statuses, safety semantics for unknown, supported namespaces, and error behavior for unsupported namespaces. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the identifiers array and each namespace. The description adds value by explaining what a value represents, listing live namespaces, and clarifying the behavior for unsupported namespaces. It reinforces but does not merely duplicate the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening line states a specific action and resource: verifying whether an identifier actually exists. The scope is further clarified with concrete examples (package to install, module to import, DOI to cite) and the supported namespaces, which differentiates it from sibling tools like hallux_check_command and hallux_check_manifest.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call before acting on any recalled name rather than a name read directly. It does not name alternative sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the recalled-vs-read distinction is a clear contextual rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Call this BEFORE running any command that installs a dependency: npm, yarn, pnpm, bun, pip, uv, poetry, pipx, cargo, go get, dotnet add package, nuget.
Language models invent plausible package names that have never existed, and attackers register those names because they can predict them. Installing one runs attacker code. You cannot tell the difference by looking at the name, which is why this check exists.
Pass the command exactly as you intend to run it. The identifiers are extracted for you.
If the result says BLOCK, do not run the command. Use the successor if one is given, otherwise tell the user what was found and stop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | The shell command, verbatim. Example: pip install requests requests-oauth2-helper |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| blocked | No | The absent, phantom and squat results. |
| checked | No | How many identifiers were checked. |
| command | No | The command as received. |
| results | Yes | Every result, in input order. |
| decision | Yes | BLOCK: do not proceed. REVIEW: something could not be verified. PROCEED: every identifier exists. NOTHING_TO_CHECK: no identifier was recognised. |
| unverified | No | The unknown results. |
| safeToProceed | Yes | False whenever anything was blocked. |
| identifiersFound | No | The identifiers read off the command. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the tool performs extraction of identifiers, outputs a result that can be BLOCK, and provides a 'successor' field. It also explains the security rationale, which goes beyond the annotations. The description does not contradict the annotations, and the extra details justify a high score, though it could mention what happens when the result is not BLOCK (e.g., it's safe to proceed) which is why it's not a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear call-to-action first, followed by rationale, usage instructions, and handling of results. It is a bit longer than necessary, but every paragraph serves a purpose. The security rationale is important context but could be condensed. Overall, it's effective and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, usage timing, alternative actions, and safety handling. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the 'command' parameter with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds crucial semantic context: it specifies that the command should be passed exactly as intended, that identifiers are extracted automatically, and that the tool is for install commands. This enhances understanding beyond the schema, justifying a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('check') and the resource ('install command'), and explicitly lists the package managers it applies to. It differentiates from siblings like hallux_check and hallux_check_manifest by focusing specifically on install commands, and provides a concrete example, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'BEFORE running any command that installs a dependency' and lists all relevant package managers. It also gives clear guidance on what to do with the result (e.g., if BLOCK, do not run; use successor if given). This is exemplary usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Call this after writing or editing a dependency file, and before committing it. Supported: package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, go.mod.
Checks every dependency in one pass, including dev and optional groups, which is where an invented name usually arrives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | The file contents. | |
| filename | Yes | The file name, e.g. package.json. Path is ignored; only the name is used to pick a parser. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| blocked | No | The absent, phantom and squat results. |
| checked | No | How many identifiers were checked. |
| results | Yes | Every result, in input order. |
| decision | Yes | BLOCK: do not proceed. REVIEW: something could not be verified. PROCEED: every identifier exists. NOTHING_TO_CHECK: no identifier was recognised. |
| filename | No | The file name as received. |
| unverified | No | The unknown results. |
| safeToProceed | Yes | False whenever anything was blocked. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by noting that it checks all dependencies in one pass, including dev and optional groups, which is a behavioral detail about coverage. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the critical 'when to call' guidance in the first sentence, then lists supported formats, then adds a helpful insight about dev/optional groups. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, return-value documentation is unnecessary. The description covers when to use, supported inputs, and a non-obvious behavioral detail (dev/optional groups). This is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (filename and content). The description merely reinforces that filename selects a parser and lists supported names, but it does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already gives. A baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks a dependency file ('Call this after writing or editing a dependency file') and lists the supported formats, making its purpose concrete. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'hallux_check' by the narrow scope of dependency files, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives an explicit trigger: call it after writing/editing a dependency file and before committing. This is a clear usage condition. It does not compare against siblings, but the specific file-type scope implies when not to use it (i.e., for non-dependency checks).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Register identifiers for notification when their verdict changes. The transition that matters is phantom to squat: a name models invent that somebody then registers.
Use this for a dependency that came back absent or phantom and that the user intends to use anyway, or for a set of dependencies worth monitoring. Delivered by signed webhook to a URL you supply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| callbackUrl | Yes | An https URL to POST transitions to. | |
| identifiers | Yes | Up to 100 identifiers to watch, typically ones that came back absent or phantom. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| event | No | |
| decision | Yes | |
| signature | No | |
| registered | Yes | |
| transitionOfInterest | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the mutation profile, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does: the meaningful transition is 'phantom to squat' and notifications are 'Delivered by signed webhook to a URL you supply.' It does not discuss duplicate registrations, but that is not necessary for a first call.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences front-load the core action, then provide a concrete use case, then the delivery mechanism. There is no filler, and the description earns each sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description plus schema cover what the tool does, when to use it, what the identifiers look like, and how delivery happens. Since an output schema exists, explaining return values is unnecessary. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are well defined in the schema: identifiers as up to 100 namespace/value objects, callbackUrl as an https POST target. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond restating that identifiers are typically absent/phantom dependencies, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Register identifiers for notification when their verdict changes' — a specific verb, object, and outcome. It is clearly the monitoring counterpart to the one-shot hallux_check sibling tools, so the agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this for a dependency that came back absent or phantom and that the user intends to use anyway, or for a set of dependencies worth monitoring.' It does not explicitly name hallux_check as the alternative or state a when-not condition, but the intended scenario is concrete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
hallux_check3 fields changedInput schema / properties / identifiers / items / properties / namespace / descriptionAdded value: +"Where the identifier lives: pkg.npm, pkg.pypi, pkg.crates, pkg.go, pkg.maven or pkg.nuget for a package, cite.doi for a DOI."Input schema / properties / identifiers / items / properties / value / descriptionAdded value: +"The identifier exactly as written, e.g. requests, @types/node, github.com/spf13/cobra, 10.1038/nature12373."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "blocked": {
+ "description": "The absent, phantom and squat results.",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "confidence": {
+ "maximum": 1,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "evidence": {
+ "description": "What the verdict rests on: registry status and time, attestations, model families, nearest existing names.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "namespace": {
+ "description": "The namespace checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "description": "Why the verdict is unknown.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "recommendation": {
+ "description": "What to do next.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "successor": {
+ "description": "The name to use instead, when one is known.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "description": "The identifier checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "verdict": {
+ "description": "exists and deprecated may proceed; absent, phantom and squat must not; unknown is never permission.",
+ "enum": [
+ "exists",
+ "deprecated",
+ "absent",
+ "phantom",
+ "squat",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "namespace",
+ "value",
+ "verdict",
+ "confidence"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "checked": {
+ "description": "How many identifiers were checked.",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "decision": {
+ "description": "BLOCK: do not proceed. REVIEW: something could not be verified. PROCEED: every identifier exists. NOTHING_TO_CHECK: no identifier was recognised.",
+ "enum": [
+ "PROCEED",
+ "REVIEW",
+ "BLOCK",
+ "NOTHING_TO_CHECK"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "results": {
+ "description": "Every result, in input order.",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "confidence": {
+ "maximum": 1,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "evidence": {
+ "description": "What the verdict rests on: registry status and time, attestations, model families, nearest existing names.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "namespace": {
+ "description": "The namespace checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "description": "Why the verdict is unknown.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "recommendation": {
+ "description": "What to do next.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "successor": {
+ "description": "The name to use instead, when one is known.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "description": "The identifier checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "verdict": {
+ "description": "exists and deprecated may proceed; absent, phantom and squat must not; unknown is never permission.",
+ "enum": [
+ "exists",
+ "deprecated",
+ "absent",
+ "phantom",
+ "squat",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "namespace",
+ "value",
+ "verdict",
+ "confidence"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "safeToProceed": {
+ "description": "False whenever anything was blocked.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "unverified": {
+ "description": "The unknown results.",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "confidence": {
+ "maximum": 1,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "evidence": {
+ "description": "What the verdict rests on: registry status and time, attestations, model families, nearest existing names.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "namespace": {
+ "description": "The namespace checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "description": "Why the verdict is unknown.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "recommendation": {
+ "description": "What to do next.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "successor": {
+ "description": "The name to use instead, when one is known.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "description": "The identifier checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "verdict": {
+ "description": "exists and deprecated may proceed; absent, phantom and squat must not; unknown is never permission.",
+ "enum": [
+ "exists",
+ "deprecated",
+ "absent",
+ "phantom",
+ "squat",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "namespace",
+ "value",
+ "verdict",
+ "confidence"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "decision",
+ "safeToProceed",
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}hallux_check_command1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "blocked": {
+ "description": "The absent, phantom and squat results.",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "confidence": {
+ "maximum": 1,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "evidence": {
+ "description": "What the verdict rests on: registry status and time, attestations, model families, nearest existing names.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "namespace": {
+ "description": "The namespace checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "description": "Why the verdict is unknown.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "recommendation": {
+ "description": "What to do next.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "successor": {
+ "description": "The name to use instead, when one is known.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "description": "The identifier checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "verdict": {
+ "description": "exists and deprecated may proceed; absent, phantom and squat must not; unknown is never permission.",
+ "enum": [
+ "exists",
+ "deprecated",
+ "absent",
+ "phantom",
+ "squat",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "namespace",
+ "value",
+ "verdict",
+ "confidence"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "checked": {
+ "description": "How many identifiers were checked.",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "command": {
+ "description": "The command as received.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "decision": {
+ "description": "BLOCK: do not proceed. REVIEW: something could not be verified. PROCEED: every identifier exists. NOTHING_TO_CHECK: no identifier was recognised.",
+ "enum": [
+ "PROCEED",
+ "REVIEW",
+ "BLOCK",
+ "NOTHING_TO_CHECK"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "identifiersFound": {
+ "description": "The identifiers read off the command.",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "namespace": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "namespace",
+ "value"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "results": {
+ "description": "Every result, in input order.",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "confidence": {
+ "maximum": 1,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "evidence": {
+ "description": "What the verdict rests on: registry status and time, attestations, model families, nearest existing names.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "namespace": {
+ "description": "The namespace checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "description": "Why the verdict is unknown.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "recommendation": {
+ "description": "What to do next.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "successor": {
+ "description": "The name to use instead, when one is known.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "description": "The identifier checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "verdict": {
+ "description": "exists and deprecated may proceed; absent, phantom and squat must not; unknown is never permission.",
+ "enum": [
+ "exists",
+ "deprecated",
+ "absent",
+ "phantom",
+ "squat",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "namespace",
+ "value",
+ "verdict",
+ "confidence"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "safeToProceed": {
+ "description": "False whenever anything was blocked.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "unverified": {
+ "description": "The unknown results.",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "confidence": {
+ "maximum": 1,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "evidence": {
+ "description": "What the verdict rests on: registry status and time, attestations, model families, nearest existing names.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "namespace": {
+ "description": "The namespace checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "description": "Why the verdict is unknown.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "recommendation": {
+ "description": "What to do next.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "successor": {
+ "description": "The name to use instead, when one is known.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "description": "The identifier checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "verdict": {
+ "description": "exists and deprecated may proceed; absent, phantom and squat must not; unknown is never permission.",
+ "enum": [
+ "exists",
+ "deprecated",
+ "absent",
+ "phantom",
+ "squat",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "namespace",
+ "value",
+ "verdict",
+ "confidence"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "decision",
+ "safeToProceed",
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}hallux_check_manifest1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "blocked": {
+ "description": "The absent, phantom and squat results.",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "confidence": {
+ "maximum": 1,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "evidence": {
+ "description": "What the verdict rests on: registry status and time, attestations, model families, nearest existing names.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "namespace": {
+ "description": "The namespace checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "description": "Why the verdict is unknown.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "recommendation": {
+ "description": "What to do next.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "successor": {
+ "description": "The name to use instead, when one is known.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "description": "The identifier checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "verdict": {
+ "description": "exists and deprecated may proceed; absent, phantom and squat must not; unknown is never permission.",
+ "enum": [
+ "exists",
+ "deprecated",
+ "absent",
+ "phantom",
+ "squat",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "namespace",
+ "value",
+ "verdict",
+ "confidence"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "checked": {
+ "description": "How many identifiers were checked.",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "decision": {
+ "description": "BLOCK: do not proceed. REVIEW: something could not be verified. PROCEED: every identifier exists. NOTHING_TO_CHECK: no identifier was recognised.",
+ "enum": [
+ "PROCEED",
+ "REVIEW",
+ "BLOCK",
+ "NOTHING_TO_CHECK"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "filename": {
+ "description": "The file name as received.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "results": {
+ "description": "Every result, in input order.",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "confidence": {
+ "maximum": 1,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "evidence": {
+ "description": "What the verdict rests on: registry status and time, attestations, model families, nearest existing names.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "namespace": {
+ "description": "The namespace checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "description": "Why the verdict is unknown.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "recommendation": {
+ "description": "What to do next.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "successor": {
+ "description": "The name to use instead, when one is known.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "description": "The identifier checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "verdict": {
+ "description": "exists and deprecated may proceed; absent, phantom and squat must not; unknown is never permission.",
+ "enum": [
+ "exists",
+ "deprecated",
+ "absent",
+ "phantom",
+ "squat",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "namespace",
+ "value",
+ "verdict",
+ "confidence"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "safeToProceed": {
+ "description": "False whenever anything was blocked.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "unverified": {
+ "description": "The unknown results.",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "confidence": {
+ "maximum": 1,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "evidence": {
+ "description": "What the verdict rests on: registry status and time, attestations, model families, nearest existing names.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "namespace": {
+ "description": "The namespace checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "description": "Why the verdict is unknown.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "recommendation": {
+ "description": "What to do next.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "successor": {
+ "description": "The name to use instead, when one is known.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "description": "The identifier checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "verdict": {
+ "description": "exists and deprecated may proceed; absent, phantom and squat must not; unknown is never permission.",
+ "enum": [
+ "exists",
+ "deprecated",
+ "absent",
+ "phantom",
+ "squat",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "namespace",
+ "value",
+ "verdict",
+ "confidence"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "decision",
+ "safeToProceed",
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}hallux_watch4 fields changedInput schema / properties / identifiers / descriptionAdded value: +"Up to 100 identifiers to watch, typically ones that came back absent or phantom."Input schema / properties / identifiers / items / properties / namespace / descriptionAdded value: +"Where the identifier lives: pkg.npm, pkg.pypi, pkg.crates, pkg.go, pkg.maven or pkg.nuget for a package, cite.doi for a DOI."Input schema / properties / identifiers / items / properties / value / descriptionAdded value: +"The identifier exactly as written, e.g. requests, @types/node, github.com/spf13/cobra, 10.1038/nature12373."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "decision": {
+ "enum": [
+ "WATCHING"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "event": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "registered": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "namespace": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "signingSecret": {
+ "description": "Verifies the webhook signature.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "watchId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "watched": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "namespace",
+ "value",
+ "watched"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "signature": {
+ "properties": {
+ "format": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "header": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "transitionOfInterest": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "decision",
+ "registered"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}hallux_checkhallux_check_commandhallux_check_manifesthallux_watchCheck npm/PyPI packages exist and that a function or method exists in an exact package version.
Check if a package or MCP server is safe before installing. Find tools, connectors, datasets.
Blocks typosquatted or hallucinated npm/PyPI packages before an AI agent installs them.
Check packages for CVEs, slopsquatting, and CISA KEV before your AI agent installs them.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.