Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DepShield MCP

DepShield MCP

by devanshkaria88
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_advisory_detail

Retrieve comprehensive vulnerability details by CVE or GHSA ID to analyze security risks and determine appropriate remediation actions for your dependencies.

Instructions

Get full details about a specific security advisory (CVE, GHSA, etc).

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": {
      "vulnId": "<vulnId>"
    },
    "name": "get_advisory_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vulnIdYesVulnerability ID (e.g., 'GHSA-jf85-cpcp-j695' or 'CVE-2021-23337')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify what constitutes 'full details,' error handling for invalid IDs, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence that is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool. The action is front-loaded, though 'full details' is vague and could be replaced with specific return value hints given the lack of output schema.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema provided, the failure to specify what 'full details' includes (severity, description, affected versions, references) leaves a significant gap in understanding the tool's utility.

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%, with the parameter already well-documented via examples (GHSA-jf85-cpcp-j695, CVE-2021-23337). The description mentions 'CVE, GHSA, etc' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema itself.

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?

Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('security advisory') with specific examples (CVE, GHSA) that hint at the expected input format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_dependency that might also return vulnerability information.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_advisory_detail vs check_dependency or deep_scan). No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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