Skip to main content
Glama
Aguantar

vibescan-mcp-server

by Aguantar
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

vibescan-mcp-server

mcp-name: io.github.Aguantar/vibescan-mcp-server

MCP server for VibeScan — scan projects for leaked secrets and security issues directly from Claude Code.

Features

  • vibescan_scan — Scan a project for secrets, dangerous patterns, and git hygiene issues

  • vibescan_rules — List all 17 detection rules

What VibeScan detects

  • 14 secret categories: env files, config hardcodes, cloud credentials, Docker/infra, CI/CD pipelines, IDE settings, SSH keys, hardcoded patterns, frontend env vars, data files, doc secrets, mobile files, system configs, editor remnants

  • Dangerous code patterns: eval(), exec(), shell injection, SQL injection, pickle, innerHTML

  • Git hygiene: missing .gitignore, unignored .env/.pem/.key files

All scanning runs locally — your code never leaves your machine.

Related MCP server: shieldbot

Installation

pip install vibescan-mcp-server

Usage with Claude Code

Add to your .mcp.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "vibescan": {
      "command": "vibescan-mcp-server"
    }
  }
}

Then ask Claude: "scan this project for security issues" or "check for leaked secrets".

License

MIT

Available Tools

2 tools
vibescan_rulesA

List all available VibeScan detection rules.

Returns the full list of 17 detection rules with their IDs, names, and descriptions. Useful for understanding what VibeScan checks for.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool returns a full list of 17 detection rules with details, which is transparent about its read-only nature and output. No side effects are mentioned, which is appropriate for a list tool.

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: first states purpose, second describes returns. No unnecessary words, efficiently conveys all needed information.

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?

Despite no parameters and an output schema existing, the description is complete: it explains the tool's purpose, return content, and count. The sibling tool context is implicit but sufficient.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no params). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. According to guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 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 the tool lists available VibeScan detection rules and specifies it returns IDs, names, and descriptions. It distinguishes from the sibling tool vibescan_scan which likely performs scans.

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 mentions 'Useful for understanding what VibeScan checks for,' implying usage before scanning, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions.

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

vibescan_scanA

Scan a project directory for leaked secrets and security issues.

Detects:

  • Leaked secrets: API keys, passwords, tokens in code/config/docs

  • Dangerous patterns: eval(), shell injection, SQL injection, pickle

  • Git hygiene: missing .gitignore, unignored sensitive files

  • 14 secret categories: env files, cloud credentials, Docker, CI/CD, SSH keys, etc.

Returns issues with severity, file location, description, and fix suggestion. All scanning runs locally — your code never leaves your machine.

Args: path: Project directory to scan (default: current directory) min_severity: Minimum severity to report — critical, high, medium, low, info (default: info)

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo.
min_severityNoinfo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses local scanning and return fields, but omits details on side effects (e.g., file modifications, temporary files) or permissions needed. It 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet points, and separate parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary text.

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 the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core scanning behavior and output fields. It is mostly complete but could detail scanning scope (e.g., recursion, symlinks) for full clarity.

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 description explains both parameters clearly, compensating for the 0% schema coverage. It provides meaningful defaults and lists valid severity levels. However, it could be more precise (e.g., exact case-sensitive values).

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?

The description clearly states 'Scan a project directory for leaked secrets and security issues' and lists specific detection categories. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'vibescan_rules', which could be used for 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 Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides parameter guidance and a privacy note about local scanning, but it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. There is no comparison to alternatives or exclusions.

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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedvibescan_rules
    • First observedvibescan_scan
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists detection rules, the other performs scans. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent 'vibescan_' prefix with a verb_noun pattern ('rules' for list, 'scan' for execute), making it predictable.

Tool Count4/5

With only 2 tools, the set is slightly below the typical 3-15 range, but it is still reasonable for a focused security scanner. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core workflow of learning about rules and running scans. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to view a single rule in detail, but the overall surface is adequate for the domain.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Aguantar/vibescan-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server