OSV Dependency Vulnerability Check MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get vulnerability advisory details (free)

get_vulnerability_details

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch full OSV records for known vulnerability IDs to retrieve summaries, affected ranges, fixed versions, severity, and references from the public OSV.dev API.

Instructions

WHAT: Fetch the full OSV record for one or more known vulnerability IDs (e.g. GHSA-35jh-r3h4-6jhm, PYSEC-2021-9, GO-2022-0969, RUSTSEC-2021-0078, CVE-2021-44228) directly from the public OSV.dev API. WHEN TO USE: you already have an advisory/CVE ID (e.g. from check_dependency_vulnerabilities or a security report) and need its summary, details, affected ranges, fixed versions, severity vectors or references. WHEN NOT TO USE: to find which vulnerabilities affect given package versions or a manifest use check_dependency_vulnerabilities (paid); to list every advisory of a package without IDs use list_package_vulnerabilities (free). COST/BEHAVIOR: free; one HTTP GET per ID to api.osv.dev, no token; OSV documents no rate limit. RETURNS: one row per ID: type="vulnerability" with the raw OSV record fields plus osv_url, or type="error" (VULN_NOT_FOUND or OSV_FETCH_FAILED, see PARAMETERS). PARAMETERS: ids: each ID is trimmed and fetched separately (in parallel) and yields exactly one row in input order, so one bad ID never fails the call: unknown IDs return VULN_NOT_FOUND rows (not retryable), network/5xx problems OSV_FETCH_FAILED rows (retryable - resend just those IDs). Use the exact IDs from check_dependency_vulnerabilities (id / vuln_ids / aliases); a CVE-... ID resolves only when OSV holds it as its own record, otherwise query its GHSA alias. Duplicate IDs are fetched twice. For more than 25 IDs, split into several calls. EXAMPLE: {"ids":["GHSA-35jh-r3h4-6jhm"]} -> 1 vulnerability row (lodash command injection, fixed in 4.17.21).

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "get_vulnerability_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes	Required. 1-25 advisory IDs, 3-100 chars each (surrounding whitespace is trimmed): GHSA-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx, PYSEC-YYYY-N, GO-YYYY-NNNN, RUSTSEC-YYYY-NNNN or CVE-YYYY-NNNNN. Example: ["GHSA-35jh-r3h4-6jhm","PYSEC-2021-9"]

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes	Number of rows returned
`items`	Yes	Result rows; each has a "type" field (data rows or machine-readable "error" rows)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.4Oct 18, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / ids / description

Previous value: -"Required. 1-25 advisory IDs (3-100 chars each): GHSA-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx, PYSEC-YYYY-N, GO-YYYY-NNNN, RUSTSEC-YYYY-NNNN or CVE-YYYY-NNNNN. Example: [\"GHSA-35jh-r3h4-6jhm\"]"New value: +"Required. 1-25 advisory IDs, 3-100 chars each (surrounding whitespace is trimmed): GHSA-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx, PYSEC-YYYY-N, GO-YYYY-NNNN, RUSTSEC-YYYY-NNNN or CVE-YYYY-NNNNN. Example: [\"GHSA-35jh-r3h4-6jhm\",\"PYSEC-2021-9\"]"

Addedv1.1.1Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description still adds substantial behavior: free tier, one HTTP GET per ID to api.osv.dev, no token, no documented rate limit, partial-failure semantics (one bad ID never fails the call), and retryability classification per error type. This is well beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Labeled sections (WHAT / WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE / COST-BEHAVIOR / RETURNS / PARAMETERS / EXAMPLE) front-load the decision-relevant content and keep every sentence load-bearing. Long, but dense rather than padded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite an output schema existing, the description's return-shape and error-code notes are actionable (VULN_NOT_FOUND vs. OSV_FETCH_FAILED retry guidance). For a single-parameter, network-backed lookup, nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is already 100%, yet the description adds real meaning: IDs are trimmed and fetched in parallel yielding exactly one row per ID in input order, duplicates are fetched twice, CVE IDs resolve only if OSV holds them as their own record (otherwise query the GHSA alias), and calls should be split above 25 IDs. None of this is inferable from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (full OSV record for advisory IDs) with concrete example IDs spanning GHSA/PYSEC/GO/RUSTSEC/CVE, and explicitly names the two sibling tools it is not. An agent can distinguish it from check_dependency_vulnerabilities and list_package_vulnerabilities without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Uses explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, naming both alternatives and the selecting condition (already have an ID vs. need to discover which advisories affect a package/version). Even notes the cost tier of each sibling.

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

Deploy Server