Determine the minimum safe package version needed to patch known vulnerabilities for a given ecosystem, package, and current version.
Returns the minimum safe version required to patch vulnerabilities for a given package and version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package | Yes | Package name (e.g. requests, aiohttp, lodash) | |
| ecosystem | Yes | Package manager ecosystem | |
| current_version | Yes | Currently installed or requested version |
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 behavioral burden. It says the tool returns a version, but does not disclose safety profile, permissions, error behavior, or what happens when no safe version exists.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and return value immediately.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema is fully documented, but there is no output schema and the description does not cover return shape details, failure cases, or absence of a safe version. It is minimally complete but leaves meaningful gaps.
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 all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions package and version but adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: returns the minimum safe version for a package/version. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_cve and audit_manifest, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate against them.
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?
It implies the tool is used when patching vulnerabilities, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.