Batch analyze all dependencies in a package.json file to surface security signals and flag risky npm packages.
Batch analyze all dependencies from a package.json file for security signals
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to the package.json file to analyze | |
| skipCache | No | Skip cache and fetch fresh data | |
| includeDevDependencies | No | Include devDependencies in analysis (default: true) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, performs network fetches, respects or bypasses cache by default, requires authentication, or has rate limits; it only restates the high-level analysis purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the operation, scope, and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain behavioral context such as caching, return format, or what 'security signals' includes. It leaves key operational details to inference despite the batch-analysis complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 path, skipCache, and includeDevDependencies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying a package.json path and dependency analysis, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb-resource pair: batch analyze dependencies from a package.json file for security signals. It distinguishes this file-based tool from its list-based sibling implicitly through 'from a package.json file', but it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives like pkg-booper-big-sniff-list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance is provided. An agent can infer this is for analyzing a package.json file, but must guess how it differs from pkg-booper-sniff, pkg-booper-big-sniff-list, or pkg-booper-clear-cache.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.