Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dependency Checker MCP Server

Dependency Checker MCP Server

by djodjonx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scan_file

Parses a manifest file to detect vulnerabilities by scanning against security databases, enabling dependency security checks.

Instructions

Parses a manifest file and checks for vulnerabilities.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "scan_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools