Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Documentation Search MCP Server

Documentation Search MCP Server

by gemini2026
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

compare_library_security

Compare security scores across libraries to inform package selection.

Instructions

Compare security scores across multiple libraries to help with selection.

Args:
    libraries: List of library names to compare
    ecosystem: Package ecosystem for all libraries

Returns:
    Security comparison with rankings and recommendations

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": {
      "libraries": "<libraries>"
    },
    "name": "compare_library_security"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ecosystemNoPyPI
librariesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.6.1
  2. Removedv1.9.0
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states output includes rankings and recommendations but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or performance characteristics. It is insufficient for a read operation.

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?

The description is concise, using a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative without unnecessary words.

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?

With no output schema, the description should fully explain the return value. It vaguely mentions 'rankings and recommendations' but does not describe format, ordering, or how to interpret results. Given its role among many security tools, more detail is needed.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description adds minimal meaning over schema titles: 'libraries' are 'library names' and 'ecosystem' is a 'package ecosystem'. This provides context but is not detailed enough to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: comparing security scores across multiple libraries to aid in selection. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from sibling scanning tools like snyk_scan_library.

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 mentions 'help with selection' but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scanning individual libraries). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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