Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Redproof

Redproof

by HowlinMan24
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Read a Redproof report

get_report
Read-only

Retrieves the score and findings for a Redproof scan, with exact files and a fix prompt for each finding.

Instructions

Read the score and findings of a Redproof scan, with the exact files and a fix prompt per finding.

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": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "get_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesThe token returned by scan_github_repo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Beyond that, the description usefully discloses what the report contains: a score, findings, exact files, and a fix prompt per finding. It does not address error behavior for invalid tokens, but the return-value context is meaningful.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the action, the scan artifact, and the payload. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned: score, findings, files, and fix prompts. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit workflow guidance for the token prerequisite in the description itself.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the token parameter is fully documented in the schema as the token returned by scan_github_repo. The tool description adds no parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read the score and findings of a Redproof scan.' It also names the report contents (files and fix prompt), distinguishing this from initiating a scan, though it does not explicitly name scan_github_repo as the alternative.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The prerequisite of obtaining the token via scan_github_repo appears only in the schema parameter description, not in the tool description itself.

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