Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Grype MCP Server

Grype MCP Server

Official
by anchore
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

scan_purl

Scan a package for vulnerabilities by providing its Package URL (PURL) to identify and analyze risks.

Instructions

Scan a specific package using PURL (Package URL) format.

Args: package_url: Package URL in PURL format (e.g., pkg:npm/lodash@4.17.20)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "package_url": "<package_url>"
    },
    "name": "scan_purl"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
package_urlYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'scan' without clarifying behavioral traits like whether it reads, modifies, or requires network access, or what side effects occur.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every word earns its place, no fluff. The parameter description is integrated without redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given a single parameter and an output schema (assumed), the description covers core usage. However, it omits behavioral context (e.g., read-only) and typical usage scenarios, leaving some gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds a format constraint and an example for package_url. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, helping the agent format the parameter correctly.

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 tool scans a specific package using PURL format, with a concrete example. This differentiates it from siblings like scan_dir or scan_image, which target directories or images.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, exclusions, or when-not-to-use hints are given, leaving the agent to infer based on package vs directory/image scanning.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools