Parses package-lock.json, requirements.txt, Cargo.lock, or go.sum, checks OSV for known vulnerabilities, and summarizes licenses to audit dependency lockfiles.
Parse package-lock.json v2/v3, pinned requirements.txt, Cargo.lock, or go.sum from text or a local path. Runs OSV querybatch and summarises licences found in the lockfile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| format | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description usefully discloses that a remote OSV querybatch is executed (consistent with openWorldHint) and that licence summarisation happens, but it is silent on precedence when both path and text are supplied, network failure behavior, size limits, and what the response contains.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the accepted inputs before the processing behavior. Slightly dense in the format list, but every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should say more about what comes back (vulnerability findings plus licence summary, and in what shape). It covers inputs well but leaves the return contract and the path/text interaction implicit, which is a meaningful gap for a 3-parameter tool.
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 carries real burden and it does add value: it maps the four enum values to concrete lockfile formats and notes constraints such as package-lock v2/v3 and pinned requirements.txt. It also glosses 'text or a local path' for the two string inputs, but never states mutual exclusivity, precedence, or that all three parameters are optional.
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 specific verbs and resources: parses named lockfile formats from text or a local path, then runs an OSV querybatch and summarises licences. That is far more specific than a restatement of the name, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like check_vulnerabilities or license_check, which appear to cover overlapping ground.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call audit_lockfile or to call check_vulnerabilities and license_check separately, nor when a whole-lockfile audit is preferred over those narrower tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.