Query OSV vulnerability records for up to 100 packages by name, version, and ecosystem; retrieve one page per package and follow each page token separately.
One OSV page per package: [{name, version, ecosystem?, page_token?}], at most 100. Follow each token separately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packages | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are paginated per package and each package's page_token must be followed independently — a non-obvious trait worth stating. It says nothing about rate limits, partial failures, or how results are keyed back to packages, though the output schema may cover the latter.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the item shape and capped by the batch limit. Terse to the point of near-telegraphic ambiguity, but no sentence is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. For a single-parameter, read-only batch tool the description covers shape, cap, and pagination follow-up, but leaves purpose framing and comparison with osv_query implicit.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does enumerate the per-package fields (name, version, ecosystem?, page_token?) and the 100-item cap, but omits the ecosystem default of 'npm' and gives no format hints for version or token, leaving some ambiguity the agent must resolve from the schema.
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 implies a batch OSV lookup ('One OSV page per package') and the input shape, but never states the verb or resource explicitly — no 'query vulnerabilities for these packages'. An agent can infer the purpose but must read the schema to confirm it is a batch version of osv_query.
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 guidance and no reference to sibling osv_query, which is the obvious single-package alternative. The only routing hint is 'at most 100', which implies batch use but never says to prefer osv_query for one package.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.