Check if a specific package version has known vulnerabilities. Requires an exact version specifier (e.g., 'requests==2.31.0').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The exact package name and version (e.g., "requests==2.31.0", "numpy==1.24.0"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, vulnerability details), whether it makes network requests, or any error conditions. The description only restates the purpose and input constraint, leaving key behaviors undisclosed.
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 two sentences, with the primary action stated first and a supporting example second. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. This is a model of concise, front-loaded documentation.
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 tool is simple, with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the purpose and input format well, but it does not explicitly state the return value or any edge-case behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, the description should clarify what the agent will receive, making it incomplete in that aspect.
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 description for the 'name' parameter is already very detailed, providing examples and specifying the exact format. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond reinforcing the 'exact version specifier' requirement, so it aligns with the schema and does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 action ('Check if') and the resource ('a specific package version'), and even specifies the required input format with an example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'lookup' and 'most_recent_not_vulnerable' by focusing on a particular version's vulnerability status.
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 provides clear context for use: when you have an exact package version and need to know if it has known vulnerabilities. It also sets a prerequisite ('Requires an exact version specifier'), which guides the agent on valid inputs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity relative to sibling tools.
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.
is_vulnerable and lookup both deal with vulnerability status, but is_vulnerable is a direct check for a single exact version while lookup is for browsing package versions and their vulnerabilities. This slight overlap could cause minor confusion, but their distinct scope keeps them separable.
The three tool names use snake_case but follow inconsistent naming patterns: is_vulnerable is a predicate, lookup is an imperative verb, and most_recent_not_vulnerable is a descriptive phrase. This mix is readable but lacks a uniform convention.
Three tools is ideal for a narrow domain like package vulnerability checking, providing essential operations without bloat.
The set covers the core workflows: checking a specific version, exploring version availability and vulnerabilities, and finding the latest safe version. No obvious gaps exist for this domain.
