Skip to main content
Glama

Utility Matrix

by io.github.helphub369
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Known Vulnerability Checker

known-vulnerability-checker
Read-onlyIdempotent

Historical curated package-name advisory reference only. Matches older CVE examples for common packages; does not query live feeds or evaluate installed version ranges, so it never proves a package is currently vulnerable or safe.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
package_nameYesPackage identifier, optionally with a version (e.g. lodash@4.17.21, log4j-core, @babel/core). Versions are not assessed by this historical lookup.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cveNo
statusYes
severityYes
next_stepYes
package_nameYes
next_step_urlYes
why_follow_upYes
interpretationYes
checked_againstYes
affiliate_contextNo
computation_basisYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / package_name / description
      Previous value: -"Package name to check (e.g. \"lodash\", \"log4j\", \"django\")"New value: +"Package identifier, optionally with a version (e.g. lodash@4.17.21, log4j-core, @babel/core). Versions are not assessed by this historical lookup."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / package_name / maxLength
      Added value: +256
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / package_name / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  "example"
-]New value: +[
+  "lodash"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "checked_against",
-  "computation_basis",
-  "cve",
-  "interpretation",
-  "next_step",
-  "next_step_url",
-  "package_name",
-  "severity",
-  "status",
-  "why_follow_up"
-]New value: +[
+  "checked_against",
+  "computation_basis",
+  "interpretation",
+  "next_step",
+  "next_step_url",
+  "package_name",
+  "severity",
+  "status",
+  "why_follow_up"
+]
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / package_name / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "example"
+]
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "affiliate_context": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "affiliate": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "cta_label": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "disclosure": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "framing": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "posture": {
+          "enum": [
+            "secondary"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "slot_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "url": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "variant": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "affiliate",
+        "cta_label",
+        "disclosure",
+        "framing",
+        "posture",
+        "slot_id",
+        "url",
+        "variant"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "checked_against": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "computation_basis": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "cve": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "interpretation": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "next_step": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "next_step_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "package_name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "severity": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "why_follow_up": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "checked_against",
+    "computation_basis",
+    "cve",
+    "interpretation",
+    "next_step",
+    "next_step_url",
+    "package_name",
+    "severity",
+    "status",
+    "why_follow_up"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  6. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  7. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description goes further by disclosing the core limitations: no live feed querying, no version-range assessment, and no guarantee of vulnerability or safety. That is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs to avoid misreporting results.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the scope statement leads and the critical limitations follow immediately. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. For a one-parameter lookup whose main risk is being mistaken for live vulnerability intelligence, the description covers purpose, scope limits, and non-guarantees adequately.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single parameter, so the schema already documents accepted forms (lodash@4.17.21, log4j-core, @babel/core) and the non-assessment of versions. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states the resource and mechanism ('historical curated package-name advisory reference'), and the second clarifies the operation ('matches older CVE examples for common packages'). It is clear what the tool does, though the framing is more noun-phrase scope statement than a crisp verb+resource, and no sibling is named (though no sibling here is a genuine alternative).

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?

Strong when-not guidance: it explicitly says it does not query live feeds or evaluate installed version ranges, which steers the agent away from treating it as a real vulnerability oracle. It does not name an alternative tool for live advisory data, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All Utility Matrix toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources