Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hostproof-mcp

hostproof-mcp

by DeveshB-1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

write_evidence_bundle

Runs Linux/Kubernetes compliance checks and writes a zip evidence bundle (summary, results, raw outputs, SHA-256 manifest) to a chosen path for audit review.

Instructions

Run checks and write a zip (summary.md, results.json, raw/*.txt, sha256 manifest) to path.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "write_evidence_bundle"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
check_idsNo
include_k8sNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that a zip is written and lists its contents, but it omits overwrite behavior, required permissions, failure modes, and whether the checks themselves have side effects.

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 definition is a single tight sentence with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical bundle contents add useful specificity without bloating the description.

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 zero schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the one-sentence description is too thin. It describes the written artifact but not enough about optional parameters, side effects, or operational constraints for an agent to call it confidently.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions the required `path`, but says nothing about `check_ids` or `include_k8s`, leaving two of three parameters without semantic guidance.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: run checks and write an evidence zip bundle to a path. It even specifies the bundle contents (summary.md, results.json, raw/*.txt, sha256 manifest). It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like run_compliance_checks or upload_evidence, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus run_compliance_checks, upload_evidence, or other siblings. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative-routing instructions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools