Skip to main content
Glama

devstack-mcp

by io.github.IsaiahDupree

Get vulnerabilities for a package

get_vulnerabilities
Read-onlyIdempotent

Known vulnerabilities (CVE / GHSA / PYSEC / GO advisories) for a package, via OSV.dev. Pass version to filter to advisories affecting that exact version, or omit it for the package's full advisory history. Each result carries the OSV id, cross-id aliases, a severity word grade (LOW|MODERATE|HIGH|CRITICAL), the cvss vector string, affectedRanges with fixed-version events, references, and cwes. A clean package returns count: 0 with an empty list (not an error). ecosystem is CASE-SENSITIVE — use OSV's spelling (npm, PyPI, Go, crates.io, Maven, NuGet, RubyGems, …). Use scan_vulnerabilities_batch for lockfile batch scans.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPackage name.
versionNoExact version to filter advisories to. Omit for full history.
ecosystemYesOSV ecosystem, CASE-SENSITIVE (e.g. npm, PyPI, Go, crates.io, Maven, NuGet, RubyGems).

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses detailed behavioral traits beyond annotations: a clean package returns count: 0 with an empty list (not an error), ecosystem is case-sensitive with examples, and results include specific fields. The description adds substantial value, enhancing the agent's understanding of output and edge cases.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter behavior, output details, edge cases, and alternatives. Every sentence adds value without fluff, balancing detail with conciseness.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fully documents return contents, edge cases, and usage constraints. It covers all necessary aspects for correct invocation and interpretation, making it highly complete.

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 100% and parameter descriptions are already clear. The description reinforces parameter semantics by explaining the version filter behavior and case-sensitivity of ecosystem, but adds only slightly beyond the schema. Still, it provides useful context for how parameters affect results.

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 the tool's function: retrieving known vulnerabilities for a package from OSV.dev. It specifies the verb 'get', the resource 'vulnerabilities', and the package scope, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_package or scan_vulnerabilities_batch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly explains when to omit vs. pass the version parameter for filtering, and directs users to scan_vulnerabilities_batch for lockfile batch scans. This provides clear guidance on usage scenarios and alternatives.

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

All devstack-mcp toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but get_package and get_ecosystems_package both return package metadata and could be confused; search_ecosystems and search_packages also share a similar naming pattern though their behavior differs (exact cross-registry lookup vs fuzzy within a registry). Overall, descriptions help disambiguate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_ for fetching specific data, search_ for searching. No mixed conventions or vague verbs, making the API predictable.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for a package/dependency intelligence server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect (metadata, versions, dependencies, downloads, vulnerabilities, insights, search) without feeling bloated or thin.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core package lookups, version listing, dependency graphs, download stats, vulnerabilities (single and batch), and security insights. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool for comparing packages or listing maintainer info, but these are not essential for the stated purpose.

Resources