rush

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rush_security

Scan project dependencies at a specified path for known vulnerabilities using pip-audit and npm audit, returning findings and a summary.

Instructions

Scan deps at for known vulnerabilities. Returns {status, findings[], summary}. Engines: pip-audit (Python), npm audit (JS/TS). status='skipped' means engine not on PATH.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`allow_slow`	No
`allow_build`	No
`allow_browser`	No
`allow_network`	No
`allow_download`	No
`allow_cache_write`	No
`allow_artifact_write`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`raw`	No
`tool`	No
`engine`	No
`status`	No
`metrics`	No
`summary`	No
`findings`	No
`metadata`	No
`artifacts`	No
`duration_ms`	No
`review_kind`	No
`engine_version`	No
`review_provider`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2Sep 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / metrics / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "number"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "string"
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedv0.3.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return format, the engines used, and the meaning of status='skipped', which is useful. However, it does not state whether the scan is read-only, whether network access is required (despite the allow_network flag), or any side effects. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary action, then the return shape and engine details. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured with the parameter explanations.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the allow_* flags, which are critical for understanding the tool's capabilities and constraints. While the output schema exists, the description does not cover essential invocation details, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 8 parameters. It only implicitly covers 'path' and mentions engines, but the seven boolean flags (allow_slow, allow_build, etc.) are completely unexplained. Without descriptions, an agent cannot understand what these flags control, making parameter semantics insufficient.

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?

The description clearly states the tool scans dependencies at a path for known vulnerabilities, which is a specific and unambiguous purpose. It mentions the engines and return shape, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rush_sbom or rush_scan, though the vulnerability focus makes it distinct.

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 gives context about engines and the 'skipped' status but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rush_sbom for SBOM generation, rush_secrets for secrets). There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, so an agent has to infer appropriate usage.

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

Deploy Server