NPMScan

Get a specific npm package version

get_package_version

Read-only

Fetch registry metadata for one exact version of a package (dependencies, install scripts, tarball) AND check that exact version against OSV.dev for known vulnerabilities — isVulnerable/highestSeverity give a direct answer, and each finding includes severity, a summary, and the fixedVersion to upgrade to. Use this to check a version pinned in a lockfile rather than the latest release.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Exact npm package name
`version`	Yes	Exact version string, e.g. "4.17.21"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`shasum`	Yes
`license`	Yes
`scripts`	Yes
`tarball`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`deprecated`	Yes
`npmscanUrl`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`dependencies`	Yes
`isVulnerable`	Yes
`highestSeverity`	Yes
`vulnerabilities`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / highestSeverity

Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / isVulnerable
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / vulnerabilities

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "aliases": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "fixedVersion": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "id": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "npmscanUrl": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "publishedAt": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "severity": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "summary": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "id",
+      "summary",
+      "severity",
+      "aliases",
+      "publishedAt",
+      "fixedVersion",
+      "npmscanUrl"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "version",
-  "description",
-  "license",
-  "dependencies",
-  "scripts",
-  "deprecated",
-  "tarball",
-  "shasum",
-  "npmscanUrl"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "version",
+  "description",
+  "license",
+  "dependencies",
+  "scripts",
+  "deprecated",
+  "tarball",
+  "shasum",
+  "npmscanUrl",
+  "isVulnerable",
+  "highestSeverity",
+  "vulnerabilities"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedSep 1, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "dependencies": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "deprecated": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "license": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "npmscanUrl": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scripts": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "shasum": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "tarball": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "version": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "name",
+    "version",
+    "description",
+    "license",
+    "dependencies",
+    "scripts",
+    "deprecated",
+    "tarball",
+    "shasum",
+    "npmscanUrl"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds rich behavioral context: the tool performs an external OSV.dev check, returns a direct vulnerability verdict, and details each finding. This goes well beyond annotations and tells the agent exactly what side effects and outputs to expect.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the vulnerability-checking behavior described concisely. Every phrase earns its place, and the lockfile guidance is a valuable addition.

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?

For a dual-purpose tool (registry fetch + vulnerability check) with an output schema and annotations, the description is complete: it explains the direct answer fields, the nature of findings, and the intended use case. No critical information is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 both name and version well-documented in the schema. The description repeats that it's an 'exact version' and clarifies the purpose, but adds no new semantic information about the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool fetches registry metadata for a specific version and checks that version against OSV.dev for vulnerabilities, listing the exact outputs (dependencies, install scripts, tarball, isVulnerable, highestSeverity, findings with severity, summary, fixedVersion). This is precise and distinguishes it from siblings like get_package or query_vulnerabilities.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this to check a version pinned in a lockfile rather than the latest release,' providing a clear when-to-use condition and a when-not-to-use (latest release). It doesn't name specific alternative tools but gives enough context to route an agent correctly.

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

All NPMScan tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct scopes, such as flat vs. transitive vulnerability checks and per-package vs. GitHub-repo audits. The main ambiguity is that several tools all ultimately report OSV/NVD findings or perform install-script risk checks, though the descriptions do draw clear boundaries and include cross-references to steer selection.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern, e.g. analyze_install_script, check_maintainer_changes, prioritize_remediation. The naming is predictable and makes the action and target of each tool immediately clear.

Tool Count3/5

At 22 tools, the surface is at the heavy end of the rubric and pushes beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. The tools are individually purposeful and broad in coverage, but the count is high enough that an agent faces a large decision space and several workflows that overlap or compose in complex ways.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full npm supply-chain assessment lifecycle: discovery, metadata lookup, vulnerability scanning, transitive dependency analysis, license checks, install-script analysis, maintainer and provenance checks, SBOM generation, dependency diffs, upgrade simulation, remediation prioritization, and alternative suggestion. There are no obvious dead ends or major missing operations for the stated domain.

Resources

Need Help?