Skip to main content
Glama
RobinBreugelmans-S

CVE Checker for Node Modules

by RobinBreugelmans-S
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    The two tools have overlapping purposes—both check npm packages for CVEs—but their descriptions clarify the distinction: one handles single packages and the other handles multiple packages. This overlap could still cause mild confusion for an agent deciding which tool to use, especially if the context involves a single package where either might apply.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'check' as the verb and 'cves' as a common element, using snake_case throughout. The minor deviation is the addition of 'bulk' in the second name, which is descriptive and maintains readability without breaking the overall pattern.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for its purpose of CVE checking in Node modules, as it might lack operations like updating CVE databases, checking specific CVE details, or handling package versions. However, the core functionality is covered, making it borderline but not severely lacking.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is significantly incomplete for the domain of CVE checking. It covers basic checking but lacks tools for operations like retrieving CVE details, updating vulnerability databases, checking package versions against CVEs, or handling installation recommendations. This will likely cause agent failures when more comprehensive actions are needed.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks for vulnerabilities but doesn't describe key behaviors: what data sources it uses, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of results. For a security-related tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and context, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the complexity of a security-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of CVEs, severity scores), how results are formatted, or any behavioral nuances. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

    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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('packageName' and 'version') clearly. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check for known CVEs/vulnerabilities in npm packages before installation.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('npm packages'), and context ('before installation'), which is clear and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'check_packages_bulk_cves' (e.g., by noting this is for single-package checks), preventing a perfect score.

    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 usage context ('before installation') but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'check_packages_bulk_cves' (e.g., for single vs. multiple packages) or any alternatives. It also lacks prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer optimal usage scenarios.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool checks for CVEs, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, data sources, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and use case. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information or redundancy.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the complexity of a security-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, data freshness), output format, error conditions, and prerequisites, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and limitations.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'packages' well-documented in the schema as an array of objects with 'name' and optional 'version'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

    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?

    The description clearly states the specific action ('check'), resource ('multiple npm packages'), and purpose ('for CVEs at once'), with explicit differentiation from the sibling tool check_package_cves through the 'multiple...at once' phrasing. It provides a concrete use case ('useful before installing dependencies') that reinforces the purpose.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('useful before installing dependencies') and implies it's for bulk operations ('multiple...at once'), which distinguishes it from the sibling check_package_cves. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/RobinBreugelmans-S/mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server