Detect known vulnerabilities in project dependencies and filter results by minimum severity threshold.
Scans project dependencies for known vulnerabilities. Optionally filter by minimum severity threshold.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| min_severity | No | Filter dependencies with vulnerabilities above this severity |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Scans' hints at a read-only operation but this is never stated, nor is the scan scope (which files/ecosystems), whether network access or a vulnerability database is used, how long it takes, or that it only reports and does not remediate.
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 core action. The second sentence largely restates the schema parameter, which is mild redundancy but it costs no comprehension.
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?
For a single-optional-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves scope undefined: it never says which dependency sources are scanned or what the result contains. An agent could invoke it, but with unclear expectations.
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 coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of a 'minimum severity threshold' mirrors the schema rather than adding bounds or semantics beyond it.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Scans project dependencies') plus the outcome ('for known vulnerabilities'), which is clear and distinguishable from the sibling triage_vulnerabilities. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The only guidance is about the optional filter, which is parameter usage rather than when-to-use. It never says when to scan vs. when to triage_vulnerabilities, nor any prerequisites (e.g., a manifest/lockfile must exist, run before triage).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.