AgentAegis

dependency_audit

Audit project dependencies for known vulnerabilities across npm, pip, Go, Ruby, Java, and Cargo manifest files or Git repositories.

Instructions

Audit dependencies for known vulnerabilities (npm, pip, Go, Ruby, Java, Cargo).

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": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "dependency_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes
`previous_scan_id`	No	Optional. A prior scan_id (from agent_history) to record as this call's parent — builds a traversable chained-workflow lineage retrievable via agent_scan_get. Must be one of your own scans; ignored otherwise. Does not change this tool's analysis.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'audit' but doesn't state whether it is read-only, requires network access, or has side effects like creating records.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose and ecosystems with no filler words.

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?

Tool has complex nested input schema and no output schema. Description does not clarify valid source combinations or the purpose of previous_scan_id. Insufficient for the complexity.

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 description adds value by listing ecosystems (matches manifest_type enums), but does not explain the source object structure or the optional previous_scan_id. Schema coverage is 50%, description partially compensates.

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 audits dependencies for known vulnerabilities and lists six package ecosystems, providing precise scope. It differentiates from general vulnerability scanning by focusing on dependencies, though no explicit sibling differentiation is given.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like secret_scan or sast_scan. Prerequisites or constraints are not mentioned.

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