Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
guardvibe

guardvibe

by goklab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

check_dependencies

Checks npm, PyPI, and Go packages against the OSV database for known CVEs, so you can audit existing dependencies or verify new ones before adding them.

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.

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": {
      "packages": "<packages>"
    },
    "name": "check_dependencies"
  }
}

Input 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. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.66.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • removedInput schema / properties / packages / items / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Addedv3.35.1
  3. Removedv3.30.0
  4. 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"
+}
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the data source (OSV database), which is genuinely useful context. However, it never states that the operation is read-only with no side effects, nor anything about network calls, rate limits, or batch size limits for the packages array.

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, zero filler, with the capability stated first and the usage trigger second. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description never indicates what comes back beyond the implication of CVEs — no mention of severity, fixed versions, or whether transitive dependencies are covered. An agent can tell what the tool does but not whether its results will answer the question it has.

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 100% and the nested package object documents name, version, and ecosystem with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: checking npm/PyPI/Go packages for known CVEs against the OSV database. That is concrete and actionable, but it does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling scan_dependencies, leaving an agent to guess which of the two to call.

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?

"Use this before adding new dependencies or to audit existing ones" gives two clear triggering scenarios. It stops short of naming exclusions or pointing to the obvious alternative (scan_dependencies), so it is clear context without routing.

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