Extract cross-language dependency coordinates and Package URLs from local manifests and lockfiles without network access to inventory a repository's software dependencies.
Extract bounded cross-language dependency coordinates and Package URLs from local manifests and lockfiles without network access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive safety traits. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it operates offline ('without network access'), is scoped to local manifests/lockfiles, and extraction is 'bounded'. It stops short of describing return shape, but the annotations carry the safety burden.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then layers scope and the offline constraint. No filler or redundancy.
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 single-parameter, read-only tool whose annotations already declare the safety profile and with no output schema, the description conveys the essential scope (offline, local manifests/lockfiles, cross-language coordinates/PURLs). Minor gaps remain around output format and supported ecosystem coverage.
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 0%, so the description would need to compensate for the lone repo_path parameter, and it does not mention it at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory for a repo-scanning tool, so a baseline 3 is fair rather than penalizing further.
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 (Extract) and resource (cross-language dependency coordinates and Package URLs) with scope (local manifests and lockfiles). It is clear what the tool produces, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from closely related siblings such as dependency_graph or cyclonedx_sbom.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The phrase 'without network access' implies an offline context but doesn't say when an agent should choose this over dependency_graph, cyclonedx_sbom, or dependency_health.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.