Vulnary-MCP

Scan Dependency File

scan_dependency_file

Parse package.json or requirements.txt to check every dependency against OSV.dev and identify known vulnerabilities.

Instructions

Parse the raw contents of a package.json or requirements.txt file and check every listed dependency against OSV.dev.

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": {
      "file_type": "<file_type>",
      "file_contents": "<file_contents>"
    },
    "name": "scan_dependency_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_type`	Yes
`file_contents`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by stating that every listed dependency is checked against OSV.dev, but it omits details like return shape, network/API behavior, error handling, or whether transitive dependencies are included.

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 one tight sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every phrase contributes either to the input format or the purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is adequate for basic invocation: it names inputs and the operation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left guessing about the result format, failure modes, and what 'check every listed dependency' returns in practice.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the allowed file types, mapping directly to the file_type enum, and explains that file_contents should be the raw manifest contents. It does not add encoding or format nuances, but it sufficiently clarifies both parameters.

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 uses specific verbs ('parse', 'check') and names the exact resource (package.json or requirements.txt) plus the target database (OSV.dev). It clearly conveys what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling scan_dependencies, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Parse the raw contents...' implies the right use case: when an agent has raw manifest file contents rather than package names. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention any sibling alternatives.

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

Deploy Server