Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
12211725-star

Hospital WAF MCP

by 12211725-star
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

Hospital WAF Management System MCP Server

Python License MCP

English | 中文

医院 Web 应用防火墙 MCP 服务器，为 AI 助手提供 WAF 规则检测能力。支持 SQL 注入、XSS、命令注入、路径遍历检测，内置医院场景专项规则。

✨ 功能特性

  • 🔒 SQL 注入检测 — 识别常见 SQLi 攻击模式（UNION注入、布尔盲注、时间盲注、报错注入）

  • 🎯 XSS 跨站脚本检测 — 检测反射型/存储型 XSS（script标签、事件处理器、JS URI）

  • ⚡ 命令注入检测 — 识别 Unix/Windows 系统命令执行攻击

  • 📁 路径遍历检测 — 检测目录穿越攻击及编码绕过

  • 🏥 医院专项规则 — 覆盖 HIS/PACS/LIS/RIS 常见漏洞模式

  • 🔄 热重载规则 — 修改规则后无需重启服务

  • 🧪 自检测试 — 内置攻击样例验证引擎能力

  • ⚡ 轻量运行 — 纯 Python 正则引擎，无外部依赖

Related MCP server: Smart EHR MCP Server

🚀 快速开始

1. 安装

# 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. 集成到 MCP 客户端

在 MCP 客户端配置文件中添加：

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

Docker 方式

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

Streamable HTTP 远程部署

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

MCP 端点：http://<host>:8000/mcp 健康检查：GET /health

📖 使用方法

检测 SQL 注入

在 Claude / Cursor / 其他 MCP 客户端中：

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 会调用 waf_check_request 工具，返回：

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

检测 XSS 攻击

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

查看规则统计

当前 WAF 引擎加载了多少规则？

🎯 提示词指南

安全评估场景

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。

规则运维场景

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。

引擎验证场景

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

日志分析场景

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"}

🛠️ 工具列表

工具

描述

参数

waf_check_request

WAF 请求检测

url: 请求URL, method: HTTP方法, headers: 请求头, body: 请求体, cookies: Cookie

waf_rule_stats

规则统计

无参数

waf_reload_rules

热重载规则

无参数

waf_run_self_tests

自检测试

无参数

📖 环境变量

变量

说明

默认值

WAF_MCP_TRANSPORT

传输协议 (stdio/http/sse)

stdio

WAF_MCP_HOST

HTTP 监听地址

127.0.0.1

WAF_MCP_PORT

HTTP 监听端口

8000

WAF_MCP_LOG_LEVEL

日志级别

INFO

WAF_RULES_FILE

规则文件路径

waf_mcp/rules/waf_rules.mcp.json

📋 检测能力

SQL 注入检测

风险类型

严重程度

检测条件

UNION 注入

High

UNION SELECT 等

布尔盲注

High

AND/OR 布尔表达式

时间盲注

High

SLEEP/BENCHMARK 等

报错注入

High

EXTRACTVALUE/UPDATEXML 等

堆叠查询

High

分号分隔多条 SQL

XSS 检测

风险类型

严重程度

检测条件

script 标签

High

<script> 标签注入

事件处理器

High

onclick/onerror 等

JavaScript URI

Medium

javascript: 协议

SVG 注入

Medium

<svg onload> 等

命令注入检测

风险类型

严重程度

检测条件

Unix 命令注入

Critical

; | & $ ` 管道连接

Windows 命令注入

Critical

& | ^ 命令连接

危险命令

Critical

cat/ls/wget/curl 等

路径遍历检测

风险类型

严重程度

检测条件

目录穿越

High

../ 路径穿越

URL 编码绕过

High

%2e%2e/ 等编码

双重编码绕过

High

%252e%252e/ 等

医院场景专项

系统类型

关键词

HIS

医院信息系统、门诊、住院、挂号

PACS

影像、DICOM、放射

LIS

检验、实验室、生化

RIS

放射信息系统、影像诊断

EMR

电子病历、病程记录

🔧 开发

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

📁 项目结构

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

📄 许可证

MIT License

🔗 链接

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