Damn Vulnerable MCP Server (DVMCP)

by Kyze-Labs

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

eng.read_source_file

Read source code files from a repository for code review, debugging, and understanding implementation details.

Instructions

Read a source code file from a repository. Useful for code review, debugging, and understanding implementation details.

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": "eng.read_source_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	No	Repository name
`path`	Yes	File path relative to repository root

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'read' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not mention error handling, required permissions, or whether it can read files from any repo. It is adequate but not rich in detail.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It does not describe the return format or error conditions, but the core purpose and parameters are sufficiently covered.

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%, with clear descriptions for both 'path' and 'repo'. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the source file context, so it meets the baseline without further compensation.

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 reads a source code file from a repository, using a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like eng.query_repos (which likely lists repos) and other eng tools focused on deployments or CI.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'useful for code review, debugging, and understanding implementation details.' However, it does not mention any alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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