Skip to main content
Glama

pkg-oracle — Dependency Trust Oracle

Server Details

Pay-per-call dependency trust oracle: verifies npm/PyPI packages before an AI agent installs them.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.7/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and uniquely scoped to package verification.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'verify_package' follows the standard verb_noun convention. Consistency is inherently perfect with one well-named tool.

Tool Count4/5

Though the tool count is below the typical 3-15 range, it is appropriate for the server's narrow, focused purpose of verifying a single package before installation. The tool is comprehensive, covering multiple verification dimensions in one call.

Completeness5/5

The tool covers all critical aspects of dependency trust: existence check, CVE lookup, OpenSSF scorecard, and typosquat detection. It provides a clear verdict with actionable findings, fulfilling the server's stated purpose completely.

Available Tools

1 tool
verify_packageVerify PackageAInspect

Dependency Trust Oracle. Call this BEFORE writing any package into a manifest (package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml, ...). It checks whether the package actually exists on its registry, cross-references OSV.dev for known CVEs, pulls the package's OpenSSF Scorecard via deps.dev, and runs a Levenshtein-distance typosquat/slopsquat check against a curated list of popular packages combined with the package's publish age. Returns a synthetic verdict: ALLOW (no issues found), WARN (proceed with caution — read the findings before installing), or BLOCK (do not install — likely a hallucinated package name, an active typosquat, or a known critical/high-severity vulnerability). Always call this before running an install command for a package you have not already verified in this session. First 5 calls per caller are free; after that this tool requires x402 payment (USDC on Base) and will return a payment-required error with the amount and address to pay.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesExact package name as it would appear in the manifest (case-sensitive for npm scoped packages).
versionNoOptional exact version string to verify (e.g. "4.17.21"). Omit to check only the package name.
ecosystemYesPackage registry to check the name against.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and succeeds admirably. It discloses the tool's internal checks, the meaning of each verdict, and the critical rate/payment behavior: first 5 calls free, then x402 payment with a payment-required error. It even covers edge behavior for unverified packages. No contradictions with annotations exist because none are present.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: what it checks, when to call, what verdicts mean, and the payment quirk. It is front-loaded with the most important action ('Call this BEFORE...') and follows with the mechanics. Despite length, it avoids fluff and is well-organized for agent consumption.

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?

As a multi-source verification tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return contract (ALLOW/WARN/BLOCK with semantics), the operational prerequisites, and the cost model. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to make an uninformed call. The lack of siblings or output schema is more than compensated.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters; it only contextualizes the entire tool. The schema already explains 'name' exactness, optional version, and ecosystem enum, so no extra param-level insight is needed. This is a solid baseline, not higher.

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 opens with a strong specific noun-verb pairing ('Dependency Trust Oracle') and immediately states the action: verifies package safety before manifest writes. It enumerates the exact checks (registry existence, OSV.dev CVEs, OpenSSF Scorecard, typosquat) and distinguishes the tool's purpose from generic install commands. No siblings exist, so no differentiation is needed, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this BEFORE writing any package into a manifest' and 'Always call this before running an install command for a package you have not already verified in this session.' It also explains when the verdicts apply, giving the agent clear decision rules for ALLOW/WARN/BLOCK. This is exemplary when-to-use guidance.

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables AI coding agents and CI to vet npm dependencies before they reach the lockfile, flagging hallucinated, slopsquatted, or otherwise risky packages with evidence-backed verdicts.
    2
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Validates and checks packages across 19 ecosystems to prevent AI agents from installing hallucinated, deprecated, or malicious packages.
    117
    AGPL 3.0
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables AI coding agents to automatically verify npm packages against the live registry before installation, flagging hallucinated, slopsquatted, or otherwise suspicious packages with risk verdicts.
    MIT
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources