Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
12211725-star

Hospital WAF MCP

by 12211725-star
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

病院WAF管理システム MCPサーバー

Python License MCP

English | 中文

病院向けWebアプリケーションファイアウォール（WAF）MCPサーバー。AIアシスタントにWAFルール検出機能を提供します。SQLインジェクション、XSS、コマンドインジェクション、パストラバーサルの検出をサポートし、病院シナリオに特化したルールを内蔵しています。

✨ 機能特性

  • 🔒 SQLインジェクション検出 — 一般的なSQLi攻撃パターン（UNION注入、ブールベースのブラインド注入、時間ベースのブラインド注入、エラーベースの注入）を識別

  • 🎯 XSS（クロスサイトスクリプティング）検出 — 反射型/格納型XSS（scriptタグ、イベントハンドラ、JS URI）を検出

  • ⚡ コマンドインジェクション検出 — Unix/Windowsシステムのコマンド実行攻撃を識別

  • 📁 パストラバーサル検出 — ディレクトリトラバーサル攻撃およびエンコーディング回避を検出

  • 🏥 病院特化ルール — HIS/PACS/LIS/RISの一般的な脆弱性パターンを網羅

  • 🔄 ホットリロードルール — ルール変更後にサービスを再起動する必要なし

  • 🧪 自己診断テスト — エンジンの能力を検証するための攻撃サンプルを内蔵

  • ⚡ 軽量動作 — 純粋なPython正規表現エンジン、外部依存関係なし

Related MCP server: Smart EHR MCP Server

🚀 クイックスタート

1. インストール

# 克隆仓库
git clone https://github.com/12211725-star/hospital-waf-mcp.git
cd hospital-waf-mcp

# 安装依赖
pip install -r requirements-mcp.txt

2. MCPクライアントへの統合

MCPクライアントの設定ファイルに追加：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "hospital-waf-mcp": {
      "command": "python",
      "args": ["-m", "waf_mcp"],
      "env": {
        "WAF_MCP_LOG_LEVEL": "INFO"
      }
    }
  }
}

Dockerでの実行

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "hospital-waf-mcp": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": ["run", "--rm", "-i", "hospital-waf-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "WAF_MCP_LOG_LEVEL": "INFO"
      }
    }
  }
}

Streamable HTTPリモートデプロイ

export WAF_MCP_TRANSPORT=http
export WAF_MCP_HOST=0.0.0.0
export WAF_MCP_PORT=8000
python -m waf_mcp

MCPエンドポイント：http://<host>:8000/mcp ヘルスチェック：GET /health

📖 使用方法

SQLインジェクションの検出

Claude / Cursor / その他のMCPクライアントにて：

请帮我检测这个请求是否有安全问题：
URL: https://example.com/search?q=1' OR '1'='1

AIが waf_check_request ツールを呼び出し、以下を返します：

[
  {
    "rule_id": "sqli-001",
    "category": "SQL Injection",
    "severity": "high",
    "matched": "1' OR '1'='1",
    "description": "检测到 SQL 注入特征"
  }
]

XSS攻撃の検出

检测这个 POST 请求的 body：
<script>alert('xss')</script>

ルール統計の確認

当前 WAF 引擎加载了多少规则？

🎯 プロンプトガイド

セキュリティ評価シナリオ

我需要对一个请求进行安全检测，
URL 是 https://hospital.example.com/api/patient?id=1 UNION SELECT，
请帮我分析是否存在攻击特征。

ルール運用シナリオ

我刚刚更新了 WAF 规则文件，
请帮我重新加载规则并确认加载成功。

エンジン検証シナリオ

请运行 WAF 引擎自检测试，
确认 SQL 注入和 XSS 检测功能正常。

ログ分析シナリオ

帮我检测这个可疑请求的完整参数：
URL: https://api.hospital.com/query
Method: POST
Body: {"filter": "'; DROP TABLE users; --"}
Headers: {"Content-Type": "application/json"}

🛠️ ツール一覧

ツール

説明

パラメータ

waf_check_request

WAFリクエスト検出

url: リクエストURL, method: HTTPメソッド, headers: リクエストヘッダー, body: リクエストボディ, cookies: Cookie

waf_rule_stats

ルール統計

パラメータなし

waf_reload_rules

ルールホットリロード

パラメータなし

waf_run_self_tests

自己診断テスト

パラメータなし

📖 環境変数

変数

説明

デフォルト値

WAF_MCP_TRANSPORT

トランスポートプロトコル (stdio/http/sse)

stdio

WAF_MCP_HOST

HTTPリスニングアドレス

127.0.0.1

WAF_MCP_PORT

HTTPリスニングポート

8000

WAF_MCP_LOG_LEVEL

ログレベル

INFO

WAF_RULES_FILE

ルールファイルパス

waf_mcp/rules/waf_rules.mcp.json

📋 検出能力

SQLインジェクション検出

リスクタイプ

重大度

検出条件

UNION注入

High

UNION SELECT 等

ブールブラインド注入

High

AND/OR ブール式

時間ブラインド注入

High

SLEEP/BENCHMARK 等

エラーベース注入

High

EXTRACTVALUE/UPDATEXML 等

スタッククエリ

High

セミコロンで区切られた複数のSQL

XSS検出

リスクタイプ

重大度

検出条件

scriptタグ

High

<script> タグ注入

イベントハンドラ

High

onclick/onerror 等

JavaScript URI

Medium

javascript: プロトコル

SVG注入

Medium

<svg onload> 等

コマンドインジェクション検出

リスクタイプ

重大度

検出条件

Unixコマンド注入

Critical

;

& $ ` パイプ接続

Windowsコマンド注入

Critical

&

^ コマンド接続

危険なコマンド

Critical

cat/ls/wget/curl 等

パストラバーサル検出

リスクタイプ

重大度

検出条件

ディレクトリトラバーサル

High

../ パストラバーサル

URLエンコード回避

High

%2e%2e/ 等のエンコード

二重エンコード回避

High

%252e%252e/ 等

病院シナリオ特化

システムタイプ

キーワード

HIS

病院情報システム、外来、入院、受付

PACS

画像、DICOM、放射線

LIS

検査、ラボ、生化学

RIS

放射線情報システム、画像診断

EMR

電子カルテ、経過記録

🔧 開発

git clone https://github.com/12211725-star/hospital-waf-mcp.git
cd hospital-waf-mcp
pip install -e .

# 运行测试
python scripts/run_functional_tests.py

# 本地运行
python -m waf_mcp

📁 プロジェクト構造

hospital-waf-mcp/
├── waf_mcp/                  # MCP 服务包
│   ├── __init__.py
│   ├── __main__.py
│   ├── config.py
│   ├── server.py
│   ├── version.py
│   ├── waf_engine.py
│   └── rules/
│       └── waf_rules.mcp.json
├── scripts/                  # 脚本工具
├── modelscope.yaml           # 魔搭配置
├── mcp.json                  # MCP 元数据
├── mcp_config.json           # MCP 客户端配置
├── pyproject.toml            # Python 项目配置
└── README.md

📄 ライセンス

MIT License

🔗 リンク

Available Tools

4 tools
waf_check_requestB

对 HTTP 请求做 WAF 规则检测，返回命中的告警列表（无命中则为空列表）。url 建议包含完整查询串。

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
methodNoGET
headersNo
bodyNo
cookiesNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an alert list (or empty list) and implies it is a read-only check. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavioral coverage is adequate but not comprehensive.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be improved by structuring parameter details more clearly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema (not detailed), the description is incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly. It lacks parameter explanations and does not cover how to structure requests. The url tip is helpful but insufficient.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only elaborates on one parameter: 'url 建议包含完整查询串'. It does not explain the meaning or expected format of method, headers, body, or cookies. The description adds little beyond the schema property names, leaving the agent to infer common HTTP semantics.

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 action: '对 HTTP 请求做 WAF 规则检测' (perform WAF rule detection on HTTP request) and specifies the output: '返回命中的告警列表' (return list of matching alerts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (waf_reload_rules, waf_rule_stats, waf_run_self_tests) which focus on rule management.

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 description includes a usage tip: 'url 建议包含完整查询串' (url is recommended to include full query string), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. The context implies it is for checking a single request, but guidance is minimal.

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

waf_reload_rulesA

重新从磁盘加载 WAF_RULES_FILE（或默认 rules/waf_rules.mcp.json）并编译。用于修改规则文件后无需重启 MCP。

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription

No output parameters

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the reload and compile actions but lacks detail on potential side effects (e.g., whether it is safe to call mid-operation, impacts on in-flight requests). The presence of an output schema suggests return values are documented elsewhere.

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 two sentences in Chinese, efficiently stating the action and purpose with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and to the point.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, output schema exists), the description covers what it does, the file involved, and the reason to use it. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline for no parameters is 4. No additional semantics needed.

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 action: reload the WAF rules file from disk and compile, with the specific purpose of avoiding MCP restart after rule modifications. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (check, stats, self-tests) by focusing on reloading.

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 explicitly indicates when to use: after modifying rule files. However, it does not provide exclusions or mention alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tool purposes.

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

waf_rule_statsA

返回当前已加载规则的统计：含 rules_file、compiled_rules、compile_failed、compile_errors（截断）及分类计数。

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription

No output parameters

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, but the description mentions that compile_errors are truncated, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it lacks further info on side effects or prerequisites.

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?

Single sentence is front-loaded with purpose and lists key fields, no wasted words.

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 no parameters and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and notes the truncation of compile_errors.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info; baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 it returns statistics of currently loaded rules and lists specific fields (rules_file, compiled_rules, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like waf_check_request or waf_reload_rules.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it only describes what it does without context for selection.

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

waf_run_self_testsA

运行内置 SQLi/XSS/命令注入/路径遍历样例，用于快速验证引擎是否检出攻击。

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the action and purpose but omits details on return format, side effects (e.g., alerts, logs), or whether it alters state. Neither destructive nor read-only hint provided.

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?

Single sentence, efficient, and front-loaded with the verb '运行'. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the core purpose. It could briefly indicate output (e.g., pass/fail), but remains sufficiently complete for a test tool.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Baseline for 0 params is 4 per guidelines.

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 runs built-in attack samples (SQLi, XSS, etc.) to verify engine detection, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like waf_check_request (single request check) and waf_reload_rules (rules reload).

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 phrase '快速验证' implies quick testing, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or any exclusions. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 4 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedwaf_check_request
    • First observedwaf_reload_rules
    • First observedwaf_rule_stats
    • First observedwaf_run_self_tests
Deploy Server
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

TDQS

A4/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: checking requests, reloading rules, viewing statistics, and running self-tests. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent 'waf_verb_noun' pattern using snake_case, with clear and descriptive verbs (check, reload, rule_stats, run_self_tests).

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a WAF server, covering essential operations without being unnecessarily large or too minimal.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover the main use cases (request checking, rule management, statistics, testing). Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for individually viewing or modifying specific rules, but core workflows are supported.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers