Skip to main content
Glama

aribot

by io.github.aristiun

Verify Threats in Code

verify_threats_in_code
Read-only

Verify whether threats are mitigated in a scan's uploaded code. With threat_id, verifies one threat synchronously and returns the verdict; without it, verifies every diagram threat in the background. Wraps code_review ThreatVerificationService.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
async_No
scan_idYesCodeReviewScan id (uuid)
threat_idNoOptional: a single threat id or code
code_contentNoOptional inline code context
repository_idNoOptional connected repo to fetch code from

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds important behavioral details: synchronous vs async execution, background processing for all threats, and service wrapping. No contradictions with annotations.

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: two sentences with no wasted words. Key information (purpose, modes, service reference) is front-loaded, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete (modes, synchronous vs async). However, it does not describe return values or error behavior, which could be useful given the complexity.

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 80%, but parameters like async_, code_content, and repository_id lack descriptions in both schema and the tool description. The description does clarify the role of threat_id, but overall parameter meaning is not fully enriched.

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 tool's purpose: verifying threat mitigation in code. It distinguishes two modes (with/without threat_id) and references the underlying service, making the action specific and differentiable from sibling tools like code_review_scan or get_remediation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode (synchronous vs background verification), offering clear context. However, it does not state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives, slightly limiting completeness.

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

All aribot toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., apply vs. get remediation, scan vs. status). A few pairs like get_insights and get_diagram_summary overlap slightly in metrics but descriptions clarify differences. No major ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Predominantly verb_noun pattern (apply_, get_, generate_). However, code_review_scan and compliance_scan are noun phrases without a leading verb, and compliance_status is noun_noun, introducing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count4/5

15 tools is at the upper end of typical but still reasonable for a security platform covering scanning, remediation, threat modeling, billing, and reporting. Each tool serves a clear function; no obvious bloat.

Completeness4/5

Covers core workflows: code/cloud/compliance scanning, threat modeling, remediation (dry-run and apply), traceability, insights. Minor gaps like missing scan listing or account management, but these align with the platform's assessment focus.

Resources