Audit a whole stack at once. Provide a list of products (optionally with versions) — e.g. parsed from a package.json, Dockerfile, or SBOM — and get an EOL Risk Score for each, so you can see what is unsupported and dangerous in one call. Free tier: up to 5 items; Pro: up to 50.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | List of stack components to score. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries burden. Discloses tier limits and optional version behavior, but omits error handling, partial results, or authentication needs. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences. First states core action, second provides examples and constraints. 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?
One required parameter with nested structure, no output schema. Description explains return (EOL Risk Score per item). Sufficient for straightforward batch tool, but could detail output format or errors.
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 100% with basic descriptions. Description adds context on batch usage and tier limits, enhancing understanding beyond schema alone.
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?
Clearly states verb 'audit' and resource 'whole stack at once', providing EOL Risk Scores per component. Differentiates from sibling single-product tools like check_eol and get_risk_score.
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?
Explicitly mentions when to use (batch audit from package.json, Dockerfile, SBOM) and tier limits. Lacks explicit 'when not to use', but context implies single products go elsewhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: checking a specific version's EOL status, retrieving full lifecycle history, scoring risk, searching products, and batch auditing. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., check_eol, get_product_lifecycle, list_products), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
With 5 tools covering listing, single-version check, full lifecycle retrieval, risk scoring, and batch scanning, the set is well-scoped for the domain with no unnecessary or missing pieces.
The tool set covers the essential workflows: discovering products, checking individual versions, obtaining full lifecycle data, quantifying risk, and auditing stacks. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
