Retrieve an OSV vulnerability record by ID with package-specific affected ranges, fixed events, and references for accurate dependency risk assessment.
Get an OSV record, retaining package-specific affected ranges, fixed events, and references.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vuln_id | 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful note that package-specific affected ranges and fixed events are retained in the result, but says nothing about behavior on an unknown ID (empty vs. error) or about response size/latency for large records.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the qualifier about retained fields placed immediately after. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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 the description needn't enumerate return fields, and the annotations cover safety. However, for a lookup keyed entirely on an ID string, the missing ID-format guidance and the not-found behavior are the exact gaps an agent would need filled before calling it confidently.
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 single parameter vuln_id carries no documented format. The description does not compensate: it never gives examples or states whether the ID is an OSV ID, CVE, or GHSA identifier. The name is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this from scoring lower.
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?
"Get an OSV record" names a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier about retaining package-specific affected ranges, fixed events, and references clarifies what kind of record is returned. It is clearly a single-record fetch, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling search tool osv_query, but the description never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.
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?
Usage is only implied: the presence of a required vuln_id signals "fetch one known record," which an agent can infer is the alternative to querying. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of osv_query for lookups by package or version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.