check_security
Check code for security vulnerabilities only (hardcoded secrets, SQL injection, XSS, etc.)
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The source code to check | |
| filename | Yes | The filename |
xpay✦ DevTools Collection
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the scope of the scan (types of vulnerabilities) without explaining side effects, state changes, or the format of results. The verb 'check' implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated, nor is any output contract or limitation described.
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 a single, tight sentence with a clear verb-object structure and no filler; it front-loads the action and scope effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description would benefit from noting the return format (e.g., list of vulnerabilities with locations). It currently provides the core purpose but omits any detail about what the caller receives, which is a clear gap given no output schema exists.
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 100% (both code and filename have descriptions), so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter details in the description. The description does not add further meaning to the parameters, such as how filename influences the analysis or expected input formats.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'check' and resource 'code', with explicit scope 'security vulnerabilities only' and examples (hardcoded secrets, SQL injection, XSS) that distinguish it from broader siblings like analyze_code or validate_code. The 'only' qualifier crisply differentiates it from general code analysis tools.
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 phrase 'security vulnerabilities only' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when security review is the goal—and implicitly excludes non-security checks. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other analysis types, so it falls short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools have overlapping or ambiguous purposes that could confuse an agent. For example, analyze_code, analyze_patterns, and analyze_design_patterns all involve code analysis with unclear boundaries, while check_deceptive_patterns and check_placeholders seem like subsets of analyze_code. The NPM tools form a coherent group but are distinct from the rest, creating a fragmented toolset.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are highly inconsistent across the toolset. Some tools use snake_case (e.g., analyze_code, execute_code), others use camelCase (e.g., npmAlternatives, npmChangelogAnalysis), and there are mixed styles like query-docs with hyphens. The NPM tools follow a consistent npmPrefix pattern internally, but this is not applied to other tools, leading to overall chaos.
Tool Count2/5
With 39 tools, this server is overloaded for a 'DevTools Collection' scope. The count feels excessive, as many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple analysis tools) or logically grouped. While the NPM tools are numerous but focused, the overall set lacks cohesion, making it cumbersome for an agent to navigate and select appropriate tools efficiently.
Completeness3/5
The toolset covers a broad range of development tasks, including code analysis, execution, documentation, and package management, but there are notable gaps. For example, there is no tool for code generation or refactoring, and the Microsoft and NPM tools are well-covered but isolated from other functionalities. The surface is extensive but not fully integrated, with some dead ends in workflow transitions.