Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

TestChimp

by io.testchimp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create Security Scan

create-security-scan

Create a queued security scan on a release. version (release label) is required. Provide exactly one of dastCheckConfig, sastCheckConfig, depsCheckConfig, or leaksCheckConfig. Returns { scanId, prompt }. Then run /testchimp run security scan for (run-release-check). Ask the user before creating DAST scans.

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": {
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "create-security-scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
botIdNoQA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding.
versionYes
projectApiKeyNoQA bots: your own project API key from your stored TestChimp binding. Required on every call except get-bot-credentials, get-project-credentials and get-bot-compat. Never print it.
dastCheckConfigNo
depsCheckConfigNo
sastCheckConfigNo
leaksCheckConfigNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the scan is only *queued* (async, not executed here), the return shape is { scanId, prompt }, and DAST scans require user confirmation. It doesn't explain permissions/credential requirements or what happens if a scan is re-created for the same version.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and requirement, then constraints, then return value and next step. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape and the required follow-up call. The main gap is that the four nested config objects have no schema documentation and the description doesn't say what keys belong in them or point at get-security-scan-config as the source.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 29% and the four check-config objects are untyped (additionalProperties: {}), so the schema alone cannot express the exclusivity rule — the description supplies it explicitly ('Provide exactly one of ...'). version being the release label is clarified. botId/projectApiKey semantics are already covered by schema descriptions, and the contents of the config objects remain unexplained.

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 — 'Create a queued security scan on a release' — which is distinct from sibling reads like get-security-scan-config and follow-ups like report-scan-findings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: version is required, exactly one of the four check-config objects must be supplied, and the tool must be followed by the run command for the returned scanId. It also adds a conditional guard ('Ask the user before creating DAST scans'). No explicit when-not-to-use case or named alternative beyond the run step.

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

All TestChimp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources