YRUZ x402 tools

YRUZ DependencyPulse Advisory Check (0.005 USDC)

deps_check_advisories

Read-onlyIdempotent

Is this exact package version affected by a published advisory? Queries OSV (GitHub Advisory Database, PyPA, and more) for the version and returns status (affected or not_affected_by_queried_advisories), every advisory with aliases (CVE), summary, severity, the affected ranges as published, fixed versions and references. The version is checked against the registry first; no advisory is never reported as safe. Price: 0.005 USDC per call, paid with x402 (USDC on Base or Solana, no account, no API key); invalid input is refused before payment and a failed run is never charged. Without a payment the tool returns the x402 PaymentRequired. How to call it: get_example {"tool":"deps_check_advisories"}. Same tool over HTTP: https://yruz.one/api/deps/check?ecosystem=npm&name=lodash&version=4.17.15

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "deps_check_advisories"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	package name (required)
`version`	Yes	exact version (required), e.g. 4.17.15
`ecosystem`	No	npm (default), pypi or composer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / ecosystem / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "npm"
+]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / name / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "lodash"
+]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / version / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "4.17.15"
+]
```
AddedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: states that the version is validated against the registry first, that absence of advisories is never reported as safe, that invalid input is refused before payment, and that failed runs are never charged. It also discloses the payment handshake (x402 PaymentRequired) for unauthenticated calls, which the annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core question and result shape, then layered with payment and invocation details. It is dense and mostly earns its length, though the pricing/HTTP boilerplate is longer than strictly needed for tool selection.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully specifies the return payload: status enum values, advisories with CVE aliases, summary, severity, affected ranges, fixed versions, and references. An agent knows what it will receive and what it costs before invoking.

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 three parameters are already documented, including the npm default / pypi / composer choices. The description reinforces 'exact version' semantics but adds no new parameter-level detail 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?

Opens with a precise yes/no question naming the resource (exact package version) and the data source (OSV, GitHub Advisory DB, PyPA), and enumerates the returned fields. The 'exact version' scoping implicitly separates it from project-level siblings like deps_audit_project and deps_batch_check, but no sibling is ever named explicitly.

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?

Clear context for when to call: you have a specific package and version and want advisory status. It also states the calling convention (get_example) and an equivalent HTTP endpoint. It stops short of naming alternatives such as deps_get_advisory (single advisory lookup) or deps_audit_project, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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

All YRUZ x402 tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.