Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dependency Checker MCP Server

Dependency Checker MCP Server

by djodjonx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

check_vulnerabilities

Check npm dependencies for known vulnerabilities by scanning against OSV.dev and Socket.dev databases. Identify security issues in your project's dependencies to prevent exploits.

Instructions

Checks a list of dependencies.

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": {
      "dependencies": "<dependencies>"
    },
    "name": "check_vulnerabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dependenciesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

C2/5.0
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 '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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools