Audit raw requirements.txt or package.json content for known vulnerabilities and get minimal safe upgrade recommendations to fix them.
Audits raw contents of requirements.txt or package.json for known vulnerabilities and returns fix recommendations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Raw string content of the manifest file | |
| manifest_type | Yes | Type of manifest |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Audits ... for known vulnerabilities' implies a read-only analysis with no mutation, but the description does not state whether it depends on an external vulnerability database, whether results are cached or rate-limited, or how exhaustive the recommendations are.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, accepted inputs, and result are all in the first clause. Nothing is repeated or wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter, fully-schema-documented stateless audit tool with no output schema, the description covers both input formats and the output ('fix recommendations'). It would be complete with a brief note on the recommendation/finding format, but the core is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description only restates that content is the raw manifest and implies manifest_type is one of the two named formats, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the enum already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (audits), resource (raw contents of requirements.txt or package.json) and outcome (returns fix recommendations), which makes the tool's function unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, and 'returns fix recommendations' partially overlaps with get_safe_recommendation, so the boundary is left to inference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (you have a raw manifest string in either of two formats), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and never mentions the sibling tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or routing conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.