Skip to main content
Glama

Dependency Health MCP

by io.github.ux-xd

deps_audit

Read-onlyIdempotent

Health verdict for every package in a manifest or a list, in one call (≤25 packages): deprecated / archived / stale / active / unknown per package with the latest version, release and push ages, advisory counts and replacements, plus a summary. Use when reviewing a repository's package.json or requirements.txt before an upgrade, an audit or a fork decision.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
manifestNoRaw package.json (dependencies, devDependencies, peer, optional) or requirements.txt text; other formats are reported as unparsed.
packagesNoExplicit list of packages; combine with or instead of `manifest`.
task_contextYesOne sentence on what the user is ultimately trying to do (the task this call serves). Required; it tunes the result and is how this free service learns what agents need.
manifest_kindNoauto

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the ≤25-package batching limit, the per-package verdict categories, and the summary output. It does not discuss output ordering, error cases, or how the task_context tunes results, but that is acceptable given the annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The main deliverable is front-loaded, the package limit is placed parenthetically, and the use case is stated at the end without repetition of schema details.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the responsibility of conveying return expectations; it does so well by enumerating the verdicts, ages, advisories, replacements, and summary. It also names the manifest formats and the use context. It could be slightly richer about how to interpret the verdict levels, but overall an agent has enough context to invoke 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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters meaningfully. The description adds light semantic glue by tying 'manifest' and 'list' to the manifest/packages parameters, but it does not meaningfully enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 description states a clear purpose: producing a per-package health verdict from a manifest or list, with specific health categories and version/age/advisory details. It implies bulk analysis ('every package... in one call') which helps separate it from the single-package sibling package_health, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use when reviewing a repository's package.json or requirements.txt before an upgrade, an audit or a fork decision'). It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as package_health or runtime_eol, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance needed for a 5.

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

All Dependency Health MCP toolsInspect
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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

deps_audit and package_health both deal with package health, but deps_audit is explicitly for batch manifest/list review while package_health is for a single deep-dive verdict. runtime_eol is clearly distinct. The descriptions make the boundaries clear, though the two package-focused tools could still cause minor selection hesitation.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use lowercase snake_case, but they follow mixed patterns: deps_audit is action-oriented, while package_health and runtime_eol are noun-state names. The naming is readable and domain-appropriate, but there is no consistent verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count4/5

Three tools is on the lower end but appropriate for a focused dependency health server: one batch audit, one single-package health check, and one runtime EOL lookup. The scope is cohesive and each tool has a distinct job, though more specialized helpers could be added.

Completeness4/5

The core dependency health workflows—auditing a manifest, inspecting an individual package, and checking runtime support status—are covered. A notable gap is the lack of transitive/dependency-tree auditing, since deps_audit only handles a provided list or manifest up to 25 packages, but the primary lifecycle decisions are still supported.

Resources