Run npm audit to identify security vulnerabilities in project dependencies, with optional severity threshold and package path.
Run npm security audit to find vulnerabilities in dependencies
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| audit_level | No | Minimum severity level to report | low |
| package_path | No | Path to package.json or directory containing it (optional, defaults to current directory) |
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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states it runs an audit but does not reveal whether it is read-only, whether it requires network access, or what side effects might occur. The agent cannot infer if this operation modifies anything or if it might fail under certain conditions. This is a significant gap for a security scanning tool.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and purpose. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding. It is optimally concise.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the agent will receive (e.g., a list of vulnerabilities, summary counts), nor does it mention potential failure modes (e.g., missing package.json). This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's outcome and prerequisites.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, with clear explanations for audit_level and package_path. The description does not add any additional parameter context, but since the schema already documents them fully, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra semantics are needed.
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?
The description clearly states the tool runs an npm security audit to find vulnerabilities in dependencies. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like check_npmrc_config or check_outdated_packages, which deal with configuration or version checks.
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 description implies usage for security auditing but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives. There is no guidance on exclusions or conditions, such as 'use this instead of check_outdated_packages for vulnerability scanning'. It only provides the basic purpose, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.