Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Presend MCP Server

by io.github.presendapp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Package vulnerability check

vulnerability_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks a package (optionally a specific version) against OSV.dev for known vulnerabilities: npm, PyPI, Go, crates.io, Maven, RubyGems, Packagist and NuGet. For npm and PyPI, a name that does not exist returns found: false and vulnerable: null, never a clean result. Use cve_lookup when you already have a CVE/GHSA ID, or supply_chain_check for a combined verdict.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ecosystem": "<ecosystem>",
      "package": "<package>"
    },
    "name": "vulnerability_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packageYesPackage name to check against OSV.dev for known CVEs.
versionNoOmit to check all versions of the package.
ecosystemYesPackage ecosystem, e.g. npm, PyPI, Go, crates.io, Maven, RubyGems, Packagist, or NuGet.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / ecosystem / description
      Previous value: -""New value: +"Package ecosystem, e.g. npm, PyPI, Go, crates.io, Maven, RubyGems, Packagist, or NuGet."
    • changedInput schema / properties / package / description
      Previous value: -""New value: +"Package name to check against OSV.dev for known CVEs."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive semantics, so the description only needs to add beyond that. It does: the npm/PyPI not-found behavior (found: false, vulnerable: null, never a clean result) is a genuinely useful edge case that prevents a false-negative read. No return-shape or rate-limit detail, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the edge case, then the sibling routing. Every sentence carries load and nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does explain the key return fields (found, vulnerable) for the negative case, which is the highest-risk ambiguity. It stops short of describing the general response shape or severity fields, but the critical semantics are covered.

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 schema already documents package, version and ecosystem. The description's 'optionally a specific version' and ecosystem list duplicate what the schema states rather than adding format or syntax guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (checks) and resource (a package, optionally a version) and names the exact data source (OSV.dev) plus the eight supported ecosystems. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling check tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use cve_lookup when a CVE/GHSA ID is already known, and supply_chain_check for a combined verdict. It also gives a when-not condition via the nonexistent-package behavior for npm/PyPI, so the agent knows not to read a null result as clean.

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

All Presend MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources