A
licenseA
qualityD
maintenanceAutomatically scans project dependencies (npm, Composer) for security vulnerabilities using the OSV.dev database, providing real-time alerts and detailed remediation guidance directly in your IDE.
1
1 npm
1
MIT
CVE Checker for Node Modules
Provides tools for checking npm packages for known security vulnerabilities and CVEs before installation using the OSV API
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@CVE Checker for Node Modulescheck express 4.17.1 for vulnerabilities"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP Server with CVE Checker for Node Modules
This Model Context Protocol (MCP) server provides tools for checking Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) in npm packages before installation, along with weather information tools.
Features
CVE Checking Tools
check_package_cves: Check a single npm package for known vulnerabilities
check_packages_bulk_cves: Check multiple npm packages at once before installation
Related MCP server: Dependency Checker MCP Server
CVE Checking
The server uses the OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities) API to check npm packages for known security vulnerabilities. This helps you make informed decisions before installing packages.
Usage Examples
Check a single package:
{
"tool": "check_package_cves",
"arguments": {
"packageName": "express",
"version": "4.17.1"
}
}Check multiple packages at once:
{
"tool": "check_packages_bulk_cves",
"arguments": {
"packages": [
{ "name": "express", "version": "4.17.1" },
{ "name": "lodash", "version": "4.17.20" },
{ "name": "axios" }
]
}
}Building and Running
Install dependencies:
npm installBuild the project:
npm run buildRun the MCP server:
node build/index.jsUsage
Add to .vscode/mcp.json to configure the MCP server in your development environment.
{
"servers": {
"cve-checker-mcp": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "node",
"args": ["./build/index.js"]
}
},
"inputs": []
}Integration
This MCP server can be integrated with any MCP-compatible client to provide CVE checking capabilities before installing npm packages.
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_package_cvesB
Check for known CVEs/vulnerabilities in npm packages before installation
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packageName | Yes | Name of the npm package to check for vulnerabilities | |
| version | No | Specific version to check (optional). If not provided, checks all known vulnerabilities for the package. |
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks for vulnerabilities but doesn't describe key behaviors: what data sources it uses, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of results. For a security-related tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and context, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage.
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 complexity of a security-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of CVEs, severity scores), how results are formatted, or any behavioral nuances. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('packageName' and 'version') clearly. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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's purpose: 'Check for known CVEs/vulnerabilities in npm packages before installation.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('npm packages'), and context ('before installation'), which is clear and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'check_packages_bulk_cves' (e.g., by noting this is for single-package checks), preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('before installation') but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'check_packages_bulk_cves' (e.g., for single vs. multiple packages) or any alternatives. It also lacks prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer optimal usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_packages_bulk_cvesA
Check multiple npm packages for CVEs at once (useful before installing dependencies)
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packages | Yes | Array of packages to check |
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool checks for CVEs, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, data sources, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and use case. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information or redundancy.
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 complexity of a security-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, data freshness), output format, error conditions, and prerequisites, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'packages' well-documented in the schema as an array of objects with 'name' and optional 'version'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('check'), resource ('multiple npm packages'), and purpose ('for CVEs at once'), with explicit differentiation from the sibling tool check_package_cves through the 'multiple...at once' phrasing. It provides a concrete use case ('useful before installing dependencies') that reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('useful before installing dependencies') and implies it's for bulk operations ('multiple...at once'), which distinguishes it from the sibling check_package_cves. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
check_package_cves - First observed
check_packages_bulk_cves
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation3/5
The two tools have overlapping purposes—both check npm packages for CVEs—but their descriptions clarify the distinction: one handles single packages and the other handles multiple packages. This overlap could still cause mild confusion for an agent deciding which tool to use, especially if the context involves a single package where either might apply.
Naming Consistency4/5
The tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'check' as the verb and 'cves' as a common element, using snake_case throughout. The minor deviation is the addition of 'bulk' in the second name, which is descriptive and maintains readability without breaking the overall pattern.
Tool Count3/5
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for its purpose of CVE checking in Node modules, as it might lack operations like updating CVE databases, checking specific CVE details, or handling package versions. However, the core functionality is covered, making it borderline but not severely lacking.
Completeness2/5
The tool set is significantly incomplete for the domain of CVE checking. It covers basic checking but lacks tools for operations like retrieving CVE details, updating vulnerability databases, checking package versions against CVEs, or handling installation recommendations. This will likely cause agent failures when more comprehensive actions are needed.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
Detect malicious or vulnerable npm packages: registry search, OSV.dev and GitHub advisory lookups
Provide AI-powered real-time analysis and intelligence on NPM packages, including security, depend…
Query OSV.dev for package vulnerabilities and batch-audit dependency lists via MCP.
check-package: block malicious npm/PyPI deps before your AI agent installs them. Free, no key.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceEnables security scanning for npm dependencies by checking manifest and lockfiles against the OSV.dev and Socket.dev vulnerability databases. It provides tools to detect vulnerabilities in specific packages and retrieve detailed technical reports for identified security issues.315 npmMIT
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceSecurity scanner for vibe coders that checks npm packages for known vulnerabilities before installation, integrating with AI coding tools like Claude Code and Cursor.1-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAudits npm packages for supply-chain attacks (typosquatting, malicious install scripts, credential exfiltration) before installation, returning a SAFE/SUSPICIOUS/DANGEROUS verdict.MIT