Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Skill Quality MCP

Skill Quality MCP

by LoveMuZiLi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

analyze_dependencies

Read-only

Detects missing, undeclared, unused, duplicate, or circular dependencies across Python, npm, Maven, Gradle, Go, Composer, and NuGet; optionally flags vulnerable locked or installed packages via OSV.

Instructions

依赖分析：Python（requirements/pyproject）、npm（package.json，含 monorepo）、Maven、Gradle、Go modules、Composer、NuGet。 检查包装没装、用了没声明、声明了没用、重复声明、循环依赖、外部命令是否在 PATH。 check_vulnerabilities：联网查 OSV 漏洞（按锁文件 / 已装版本）。detail：列出每个包的版本、使用文件和全部漏洞编号。

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_dependencies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
detailNo
check_vulnerabilitiesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real value on top by pinning network access to the check_vulnerabilities flag (OSV lookup by lockfile/installed version), implying the default run is local-only. It does not cover failure behavior when no manifest exists or the cost of a monorepo scan, but for a read-only tool this is solid added context.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: ecosystem coverage first, then the checks performed, then the two flags with their effects. Almost every clause carries information; only the ecosystem enumeration is slightly long relative to the rest.

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?

For a multi-ecosystem scanner with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what a finding looks like and what `path` points at. It hints at output only through the `detail` sentence, and says nothing about behavior when no manifest is found or how findings are reported in the default (non-detail) mode.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load: it does explain check_vulnerabilities (online OSV query) and detail (per-package version, usage files, full vulnerability IDs) well. The required `path` parameter, however, is never explained — directory vs. manifest file, absolute vs. relative — leaving the most important input undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb (dependency analysis) and enumerates exactly what it inspects: Python requirements/pyproject, npm incl. monorepo, Maven, Gradle, Go modules, Composer, NuGet. The check list (undeclared-but-used, declared-but-unused, duplicates, circular deps, PATH lookups) makes it unmistakable against the sonar_* and code_quality_scan siblings.

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 description implies the usage context (a project at a given path with manifest/lock files), and it explains what the two optional flags switch on. But it never states when to pick this over code_quality_scan or sonar_run_scan, nor any prerequisite (e.g. lockfile presence) or exclusion.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools