A
licenseC
qualityD
maintenanceA Model Context Protocol server designed for testing backend APIs for security vulnerabilities like authentication bypass, injection attacks, and data leakage.
14
16
MIT
VA-MCP
VA-MCP
開発段階の機能単位テストにおいて、OWASP TOP10に該当する脆弱性をチェックするためのMCPです。このMCPはAPIに関する情報を受け取り、分析してその分析結果を出力する予定です。
Scope (MVP)
MCP stdioサーバーの実行
基本ツールの提供:
pinglist_supported_checks
今後のOWASP Top 10シナリオの拡張
Related MCP server: MCP-QA
事前準備 (Prerequisites)
チームメンバーが開発を開始する前に、以下がインストールされている必要があります。
Git
uv(推奨) Python 3.11+
インストール確認:
git --version
uv --version
python3 --versionQuick Start
# 1) 저장소 클론
git clone <repo-url>
cd VA-MCP
# 2) 의존성/가상환경 동기화
uv sync
# 3) 테스트 확인
uv run pytest -q
# 4) MCP 서버 실행
uv run va-mcpva-mcpはstdioトランスポートで動作するため、MCPクライアント(IDE/Agent)からサーバーに接続して使用します。
開発ルール
チームの開発ルール(ブランチ戦略、テスト、PR、コミットルール)は dev-guide.md を参照してください。
テストガイド
機能開発後、以下の順序でテストを行います。
# 1) 의존성 동기화
uv sync
# 2) 테스트 실행
uv run pytest -qテストコードはルートの
tests/フォルダに作成します。新しい機能を追加する場合は、対応するテストを必ず一緒に作成してください。
最小基準:
機能単位テスト1つ以上
tests/test_smoke.pyが常にパスすること
ディレクトリの役割
src/va_mcp/: アプリケーションソースコードのルートsrc/va_mcp/server.py: MCPサーバーのエントリーポイント (va-mcp実行時に開始されるファイル)src/va_mcp/app.py:FastMCPアプリの作成および初期化src/va_mcp/config.py: 環境変数の読み込み、出力ディレクトリの設定src/va_mcp/registry/: どの機能(tool)とデータ(resource)をMCPに表示するかを登録する場所src/va_mcp/tools/: MCPが実際に実行する機能関数 (例:ping、チェック実行)src/va_mcp/resources/: 機能で共通して使用する基準データ集 (例: サポートされているチェックリスト)tests/: テストコード (開発完了後、必須実行)outputs/: 実行結果の成果物保存先
Notes
現在はローカル連携(stdio)基準で設計されています。
今後、AWSデプロイ段階でHTTP方式に切り替える予定です。
Available Tools
2 toolslist_supported_checksB
현재 지원 예정인 점검 항목 목록을 반환한다.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like response format, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic action.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for conveying the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on output format or behavioral traits, which could be helpful for an agent to understand what to expect from the response. It meets the minimum viable level but doesn't provide comprehensive context.
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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for this scenario. No additional value is required or provided, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters.
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 the tool's purpose: '현재 지원 예정인 점검 항목 목록을 반환한다' translates to 'Returns a list of inspection items currently scheduled for support.' This specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('list of inspection items scheduled for support'), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'ping', which likely serves a different function (e.g., connectivity testing), so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'ping' or any other context for usage, such as prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Without such information, the agent lacks explicit direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pingB
MCP 서버 상태를 확인한다.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('checks server status') but provides no information about what the check entails, what 'status' means, whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, or what happens when invoked. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
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?
Given that the tool has no parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a status-checking tool with no annotations, the description should ideally provide more context about what 'server status' means and what the output represents. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description itself lacks completeness for understanding the tool's behavior and results.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps since there are none.
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 the tool's purpose: 'MCP 서버 상태를 확인한다' (Checks MCP server status). It uses a specific verb ('확인한다' - checks/verifies) and resource ('MCP 서버 상태' - MCP server status). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'list_supported_checks', which might have overlapping or related functionality.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool should be used, when it shouldn't, or how it differs from the sibling tool 'list_supported_checks'. The agent receives no contextual usage information beyond the basic purpose statement.
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.
2 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
list_supported_checks - First observed
ping
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one lists supported checks (a domain-specific operation) and the other checks server status (a general utility). There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a consistent snake_case naming pattern with clear verb_noun structure: 'list_supported_checks' and 'ping'. The naming is predictable and readable throughout.
Tool Count2/5
With only two tools, the server feels severely under-scoped for a domain like 'VA-MCP' (which suggests vulnerability assessment or similar). A single domain-specific tool plus a ping utility is too thin for meaningful agent workflows.
Completeness2/5
The server appears to target vulnerability/security checks, but only lists supported checks without tools to run checks, get results, or manage them. This leaves significant gaps that will hinder agent operations in this domain.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server: static security scanner for MCP servers, agent skills & plugins. 17 attack patterns.
Security, SEO and AI-visibility scanner for web apps · free scans and focused checks via MCP.
Zero-config MCP security scanner for AI-generated apps. 25K+ vulnerability patterns.
MCP server for AI access to Swagger by SmartBear.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server for the comprehensive analysis of Swagger 2.0 and OpenAPI 3.x contracts. It allows users to extract detailed information about endpoints, request/response schemas, parameters, and security configurations from API documentation.-
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that integrates SAST, DAST, and SCA security tools to enable AI-driven vulnerability scanning and automated security reporting. It allows AI assistants to execute and analyze results from tools like Semgrep, OWASP ZAP, and Trivy within a DevSecOps workflow.6MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server for AI-powered API testing that enables automated positive, negative, and security testing directly from AI chat interfaces. It supports multiple AI providers and generates detailed security reports.8 npm-