Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Run Security Review

run_security_review

Find security problems in a repository: a deep, whole-codebase review.

Spawns a one-shot audit that scans the repo across a kind-aware taxonomy
(secrets + git history, vulnerable/abandoned deps, injection, SSRF, path
traversal, deserialization, crypto, info-leak, plus web authz/session/CORS,
library API-misuse, game client-trust, or infra/CI as applicable) and posts
findings to the project's Security review for human triage. The findings
are reviewed by a human and the ones worth fixing go into the loop as
Requests; no fix is applied automatically. Billable; one audit in-flight
per project.
(Triggering is disabled while the feature is hardened for production: a
project not on the operator allowlist — empty by default — returns a message
instead of spawning; earlier results stay visible.) Requires a paid plan;
a free or trial workspace gets a message telling the user to upgrade.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "run_security_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false): discloses the scan taxonomy, that findings are human-triaged and never auto-applied, billable cost, concurrency limit (one in-flight per project), the operator allowlist gating that can return a message instead of running, and the paid-plan requirement. This is rich operational context an agent needs before invoking.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with a strong one-line purpose, but the taxonomy enumeration is a lengthy parenthetical list that arguably belongs in docs. The parenthetical caveats (allowlist, paid plan) are useful but push the description toward overload.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-param tool with an output schema, the description covers invocation preconditions (allowlist gating, paid plan, concurrency), side effects (billable, no auto-fix), and result routing (findings to Security review). Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter (project_id) is undocumented in both description and schema. However, the parameter is a self-evident id given the surrounding narrative. No additional syntax or format guidance is provided beyond the implied project scope.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find security problems in a repository') and immediately scopes it as 'a deep, whole-codebase review,' which distinguishes it from the sibling review tools (run_control_gap_review, run_legal_exposure_review) by domain.

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?

Clearly conveys the usage context: one-shot audit whose findings go to human triage, no auto-fix, billable, one in-flight per project. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling review tools as alternatives, but the framing makes the use case unambiguous.

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

All Keelen toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources