Agent Tools

manifest_scan

Batch vulnerability scan of a whole package.json (npm) or requirements.txt (PyPI): JSON body {manifest}. Checks up to 50 dependencies against OSV.dev known advisories and returns, per package, the version checked, vulnerability count by severity, advisory IDs and the minimum fixed version, with vulnerable packages listed first. Cheaper batch form of package_advisories. Price $0.012 USDC per call via x402. Example output: {"ecosystem":"npm","manifest_type":"package.json","summary":{"dependencies_found":2,"checked":2,"not_checked_over_limit":0,"lookup_failed":0,"vulnerable_packages":1,"known_vulnerabilities":5},"vulnerable":[{"name":"lodash","spec":"4.17.20","version_checked":"4.17.20","vulnerable":true,"vulnerabiliti

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "manifest": "<manifest>"
    },
    "name": "manifest_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	Optional. Auto-detected if omitted
`manifest`	Yes	package.json or requirements.txt contents as a string, max 200,000 chars

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the OSV.dev data source, the 50-package cap, per-package output fields (version checked, severity counts, advisory IDs, min fixed version), ordering (vulnerable first), and the $0.012 USDC x402 price. It stops short of documenting auth/payment setup or rate limits, and the example output is truncated mid-word.

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?

Core capabilities (batch scope, limit, output fields, price) are front-loaded in the first sentences, which is good. However the trailing 'Example output' is cut off mid-token ('vulnerabiliti'), which is wasted space and slightly undermines structure.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description supplies enough: input shape, cap, data source, per-package return fields, ordering, and cost. Missing pieces are error/edge behavior for unsupported manifests and x402 payment mechanics, but an agent could call this correctly from the current text.

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 the schema already documents both parameters including the enum and the 200,000-char limit. The description adds only the shape hint 'JSON body {manifest}' and the dependency-count limit, which is marginal beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Batch vulnerability scan of a whole package.json (npm) or requirements.txt (PyPI)') and names the sibling it replaces for bulk use ('Cheaper batch form of package_advisories'). An agent can distinguish it from package_advisories and dependency_audit without opening the schema.

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 positions itself as the batch alternative to package_advisories and states the 50-dependency ceiling, which tells the agent when to choose it. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g. single-package lookups should use package_advisories), leaving that inference to the reader.

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

All Agent Tools 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?