Skip to main content
Glama
djodjonx

Dependency Checker MCP Server

by djodjonx
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.3.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct action: checking dependencies by list, retrieving vulnerability details by ID, and scanning a manifest file. No overlap in purpose.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_vulnerabilities, get_vulnerability_details, scan_file), with descriptive verbs that match the operation.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools cover the core workflow of checking dependencies and retrieving details, which is appropriate for a focused dependency checker without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers the main use cases (checking via list or file, getting details), but might benefit from a tool to list all known vulnerabilities or update databases, though not essential.

  • Average 2.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • 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 'checks,' which is vague. No information on network calls, side effects, or whether it modifies anything.

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

    Conciseness2/5

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

    The description is extremely short (one phrase). While concise in word count, it is under-specified, offering no added value. It does not earn its place because it provides no useful information beyond the tool name.

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

    Completeness1/5

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

    Given the tool has one complex parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain return values, potential errors, or prerequisites, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning to the 'dependencies' parameter. It does not; it merely echoes the parameter name. No explanation of required fields (name, version) or their purpose.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose3/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description states 'Checks a list of dependencies,' which gives a general verb and resource but lacks specificity (e.g., checks for vulnerabilities? versions?). It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like get_vulnerability_details, which could also involve checking details.

    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 (get_vulnerability_details, scan_file) or when not to use it. The description is too brief to suggest appropriate context.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. The agent lacks assurance about safety or permissions.

    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?

    The description is extremely concise at 9 words. However, given the lack of other context, it is too terse; additional details would be warranted. The structure is front-loaded but sparse.

    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?

    The description omits essential context such as response format, error behavior, or any limitations (e.g., maximum number of IDs). For a retrieval tool with no output schema, this leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    The only parameter 'vuln_ids' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description merely repeats 'list of vulnerability IDs' without adding constraints, format, or source guidance. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

    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 retrieves details for vulnerability IDs, using a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_vulnerabilities and scan_file, which imply different operations.

    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 vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or contextual hints. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens if the file is invalid. Minimal disclosure.

    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?

    Extremely concise at 7 words with no fluff. Every word contributes, but could include more critical details without becoming verbose.

    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?

    Given lack of annotations and output schema, description fails to explain return values, success/error behavior, or any postconditions. Incomplete for a tool with one parameter and no structured output documentation.

    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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It clarifies the parameter 'file_path' is the path to a manifest file, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not specify file format or constraints, limiting richness.

    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?

    Describes a specific action (parses and checks for vulnerabilities) on a specific resource (manifest file). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 'check_vulnerabilities' and 'get_vulnerability_details' by focusing on file parsing.

    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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to choose a sibling tool.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

dependency-checker-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

dependency-checker-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/djodjonx/dependency-checker-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server