pkgintel-mcp

get_scorecard

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch an OpenSSF Scorecard report for a GitHub repository, or resolve the repository from a package name and version via deps.dev.

Instructions

Fetch an OpenSSF Scorecard report for a GitHub repo, or resolve the repo from a package via deps.dev.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_scorecard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`project`	No
`version`	No
`ecosystem`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that external resolution goes through deps.dev, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it says nothing about failure behavior when a package can't be resolved, or about data freshness/caching.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; both operating modes are stated compactly and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and the two input routes, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the parameter-to-mode mapping, which matters for a tool where all four parameters are optional and mutually dependent.

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 0%, so the schema provides four opaque strings and an ecosystem enum with no meaning attached. The description partially compensates by revealing two input shapes (repo name vs. package identity), but it never maps 'name', 'project', 'version' or 'ecosystem' to those shapes, and leaves requiredness (0 required params) ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch an OpenSSF Scorecard report') and adds the scope: either a GitHub repo directly or a package resolved via deps.dev. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_package or get_dependencies, though it doesn't name a sibling to route against.

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 two operating modes are implied by 'for a GitHub repo, or resolve the repo from a package via deps.dev', which hints at when each input shape applies. However, it never states which parameters select which mode, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., must supply name OR project+ecosystem).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server