Skip to main content
Glama
goklab

guardvibe

by goklab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

check_dependencies

Identify known security vulnerabilities in npm, PyPI, and Go packages before adding them to your project. Submit package names and versions to get CVE details from the OSV database.

Instructions

Check npm, PyPI, or Go packages for known security vulnerabilities (CVEs) using the OSV database. Use this before adding new dependencies or to audit existing ones.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoOutput format: markdown (human) or json (machine-readable for agents)markdown
packagesYesList of packages to check: [{name, version, ecosystem}]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.35.1
  2. Removedv3.30.0
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv3.27.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / format
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "markdown",
+  "description": "Output format: markdown (human) or json (machine-readable for agents)",
+  "enum": [
+    "markdown",
+    "json"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention that the tool is read-only, calls an external API, or other behavioral traits. It is adequate but minimal.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, followed by usage context. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose and use case well, though a note on return format would be helpful.

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 100%, and the description only echoes schema info (ecosystem and format hints). It does not add new meaning 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 tool checks npm, PyPI, or Go packages for CVEs using the OSV database, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on scanning files or secrets.

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?

The description explicitly advises using the tool before adding new dependencies or auditing existing ones, but lacks comparison to siblings like scan_dependencies or check_package_health.

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