Skip to main content
Glama
lazaretto-mcp

lazaretto-mcp

Behaviorally scan every pinned dependency in a lockfile (paid, one credit per package)

scan_lockfile_deep

Scans every pinned dependency's code in a lockfile without executing it, reporting credential theft, exfiltration, obfuscation, prompt injection, and install-time droppers.

Instructions

Behaviorally scans EVERY exactly-pinned dependency in a lockfile, not just their identities: reads the code of each package, without executing it, and reports credential theft, exfiltration, obfuscation, prompt injection and install-time droppers. This is the paid counterpart to check_lockfile, which only matches names and versions against advisories.

WHEN TO USE: before installing a tree you have not vetted. Run the free check_lockfile first, since it covers every package at once for nothing. Use scan_artifact instead for one package, or when you need the file, line and evidence behind a finding.

COST AND EFFECTS: paid, one prepaid credit per package that returns a verdict and nothing for one that errors, authenticated by the LAZARETTO_API_KEY environment variable. Without a key it sends nothing, consumes nothing and returns payment_required (buy credits at https://lazaretto.dev/buy). Reads the lockfile from the working directory itself, like check_lockfile.

LIMITS: capped at 25 packages per call, and a call that runs out of time returns what finished. Calling again with the same lockfile rescans, and bills again, the same first packages. To get past them, pass packages instead: the name@version of the next ones to scan. Only exactly pinned versions can be scanned. Each result gives a verdict, risk, the ids of the rules that fired and a one-line summary, not the full evidence.

READING THE RESULT: trust complete_coverage. false means something was capped, errored, only partly readable, or skipped (see not_scanned and errored), so the run is NOT a clean bill of health for the whole tree. When not_scanned.packages lists what was left, next_call gives the next up to 25 of them to pass as packages. Gate each package on its risk, not on verdict. A clear with analysis_partial: true is not a clean result. billed_credits and remaining_credits show what the call cost.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "scan_lockfile_deep"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoLockfile path relative to the working directory, e.g. "package-lock.json" or "apps/web/pnpm-lock.yaml". Omit to auto-detect package-lock.json, npm-shrinkwrap.json, yarn.lock, or pnpm-lock.yaml in the working directory. Only those filenames are read.
lockfileNoThe full text contents of a package-lock.json, yarn.lock, or pnpm-lock.yaml, for when it is not on disk. Supplying this skips reading from disk. Prefer omitting it and letting the tool read the file, which keeps a large lockfile out of the context window.
packagesNoExact name@version identities to scan instead of a lockfile, at most 25, e.g. ["chalk@5.6.1", "@babel/core@7.24.0"]. Use it to continue a run: when a result lists `not_scanned.packages`, call again with the next up to 25 of them (`next_call.packages` holds the first 25). When set, `path` and `lockfile` are ignored and no lockfile is read or sent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: per-package credit billing, LAZARETTO_API_KEY auth, safe no-op behavior without a key (returns payment_required, sends and consumes nothing), a 25-package cap, partial results on timeout, and re-billing of the same first packages on a repeat call. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before invoking a paid, capped tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Long but front-loaded and organized under explicit headers (WHEN TO USE, COST AND EFFECTS, LIMITS, READING THE RESULT), so an agent can scan to the section it needs. Slight redundancy: the `packages` continuation path is explained once under LIMITS and again under READING THE RESULT, which costs a few lines.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values — and it does: verdict, risk, fired rule ids, one-line summary, complete_coverage, not_scanned, errored, next_call, billed_credits, remaining_credits, plus the critical interpretation rule to gate on `risk` rather than `verdict` and to distrust `clear` with `analysis_partial: true`. Complete for a paid, capped, partial-results tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: `packages` is framed as the continuation mechanism for a capped run, driven by `next_call.packages`/`not_scanned.packages`, and it notes that setting it makes `path` and `lockfile` ignored. Minor gap: it does not restate the exact-pin requirement's regex form, but the schema handles that.

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 and resource — 'behaviorally scans EVERY exactly-pinned dependency in a lockfile' — and immediately contrasts the scope with check_lockfile ('only matches names and versions') and scan_artifact ('one package'). An agent can tell exactly which sibling this is not.

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?

Gives explicit WHEN TO USE ('before installing a tree you have not vetted') and a concrete ordering rule: run the free check_lockfile first because it covers every package at no cost. It also names the alternative (scan_artifact) with the condition that selects it (one package, or when you need file/line evidence).

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