Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
endoflife-mcp

endoflife-mcp

Official
by endoflife-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

scan_stack

Audit your entire software stack at once. Provide a list of products and get an end-of-life risk score for each to identify unsupported and dangerous components in a single call.

Instructions

Audit a whole stack at once. Provide a list of products (optionally with versions) — e.g. parsed from a package.json, Dockerfile, or SBOM — and get an EOL Risk Score for each, so you can see what is unsupported and dangerous in one call. Free tier: up to 5 items; Pro: up to 50.

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": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "scan_stack"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesList of stack components to score.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an EOL Risk Score per item, allows optional versions, and specifies tier limitations. No contradictory statements or hidden behaviors.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences: first covers purpose and examples, second covers tier limits. No filler, every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains input format, output (EOL Risk Score per item), and constraints. Could detail return structure more, but sufficient for the agent to understand usage.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'product' and 'version'. The description adds real-world examples (package.json, Dockerfile, SBOM) and explains the effect of omitting version (gets highest-risk release), going 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 verb 'Audit' and the resource 'a whole stack', and explains it returns an EOL Risk Score for each product. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_products and get_product_lifecycle by emphasizing batch processing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context on when to use: when you want to audit a stack at once, with examples like package.json, Dockerfile, or SBOM. Also mentions tier limits (free up to 5, Pro up to 50). Does not explicitly exclude single-product cases but the sibling tools handle those.

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