Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kratos-MCP

Kratos-MCP

by FoggyStorm
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

security_scan

Identify and redact Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and sensitive data in text using Kratos-MCP server. Ensure data privacy and security compliance in codebases by scanning and optionally returning redacted content.

Instructions

Scan text for PII and secrets

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "security_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
redactNoReturn redacted version
textYesText to scan

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description only says 'scan,' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose whether the tool modifies data, the scope of detection, or side effects. No annotations exist to compensate.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks detail on what constitutes PII/secrets or how scanning works. More context would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal context ('PII and secrets') but does not explain parameter interactions or formats beyond schema.

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 scans text for PII and secrets, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_get or system_status.

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 is provided on when or when not to use this tool, such as prerequisites or alternatives. Sibling tools are unrelated, but the description offers no contextual advice.

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

Related Tools