pkg-oracle — Dependency Trust Oracle
Server Details
Pay-per-call dependency trust oracle: verifies npm/PyPI packages before an AI agent installs them.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.7/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
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.
The single tool name 'verify_package' follows the standard verb_noun convention. Consistency is inherently perfect with one well-named tool.
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.
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 toolverify_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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Exact package name as it would appear in the manifest (case-sensitive for npm scoped packages). | |
| version | No | Optional exact version string to verify (e.g. "4.17.21"). Omit to check only the package name. | |
| ecosystem | Yes | Package registry to check the name against. |
Tool Definition Quality
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
check-package: block malicious npm/PyPI deps before your AI agent installs them. Free, no key.
Trust-check any dependency for agents: OpenSSF Scorecard, licenses, CVEs, deps. 7 ecosystems.
Package intelligence for AI agents across npm, PyPI, crates.io and deps.dev. No API keys.
Protects AI coding agents from installing malicious open source packages. Every npm and PyPI package is checked against SafeDep’s real-time threat intelligence before installation.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables 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.2MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceDependency security & health auditing for AI agents with no account or API key required.22MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceValidates and checks packages across 19 ecosystems to prevent AI agents from installing hallucinated, deprecated, or malicious packages.117AGPL 3.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables 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