Check a list of npm packages for known security vulnerabilities. Identify risky dependencies and support remediation decisions.
Check for known vulnerabilities in packages
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packages | Yes | List of package names to check for vulnerabilities | |
| ignoreCache | No | Force a fresh lookup, ignoring the cache |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| results | No | ||
| summary | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.24.0v1.23.0v1.20.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / ignoreCacheAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Force a fresh lookup, ignoring the cache",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). Annotations already indicate it's a read-only, open-world operation, so the description's contribution is minimal.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Could be slightly expanded to include more context without losing conciseness.
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?
Missing important context such as the vulnerability source, scope (e.g., known vulnerabilities from npm advisories), or any limitations. With output schema present, return values are covered, but the description still feels incomplete for a security-checking tool.
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%, fully describing both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning for parameters, so baseline of 3 is 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 'Check for known vulnerabilities in packages' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like npmVersions or npmLatest by focusing on security vulnerabilities. However, it could be more precise by mentioning the vulnerability database (e.g., OSV.dev from the annotation title).
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other npm tools. For example, when to prefer this over npmScore or npmQuality is not indicated. Lacks exclusions or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.