gmi-security-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

scope_enable

Activates scope for a repository from a scope file, returning in-scope and out-of-scope lists plus a warning that scope is destination policy, not test authorisation or an OS sandbox.

Instructions

Enable scope for one repo from a scope file.

A scope file alone never activates checks; only this call does. Returns the in-scope and out-of-scope lists and a warning that scope is a destination policy, not authorisation to test, and not an OS sandbox.

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": {
      "scope_file": "<scope_file>",
      "repo_path": "<repo_path>"
    },
    "name": "scope_enable"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo_path`	Yes
`scope_file`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.5.11Nov 12, 2026

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 and does disclose useful behavior: it returns in-scope and out-of-scope lists plus a policy warning, and it clarifies that scope is a destination policy, not authorization to test and not an OS sandbox. However, it says nothing about persistence (does scope stay enabled until scope_disable?), idempotency if already enabled, or failure modes for a bad scope_file or repo_path.

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?

Front-loaded with the action in the first sentence, followed by the activation caveat and return summary. The warning clause is slightly verbose but carries semantic value rather than 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the return payload and adds the important policy caveat, so an agent understands the effect and the safety framing of a state-changing call with no annotations. The main remaining gap is lifecycle and error behavior, which matters for an enable/mutate operation.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'From a scope file' hints that scope_file is a file reference, but repo_path is never mentioned and no format, path convention, or expected file structure is given for either parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Enable scope for one repo') plus the source of the scope ('from a scope file'), which is enough to distinguish it from scope_disable. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast behaviors, so it stops 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly tells the agent when this call is necessary: 'A scope file alone never activates checks; only this call does.' That is a real activation prerequisite rather than vague context. It does not name scope_disable as the inverse operation or state conditions under which enabling should be avoided.

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

Deploy Server