Skip to main content
Glama

security_surface

Scan a Python repository to detect high-risk functions like subprocess or eval and potential hardcoded secrets using pure AST analysis, without LLM calls.

Instructions

Walk a Python repo and find functions that call dangerous primitives — pure AST analysis, zero LLM calls. Classifies calls as HIGH risk (subprocess/os.system/eval/exec/pickle/import/ctypes …) or MEDIUM risk (sockets/requests/httpx/urllib/paramiko/smtplib and write-mode open()). Also scans for potential secrets: hardcoded keys/tokens (AKIA…, sk-…, ghp_…, token=/password=/api_key= assignments), .env/environment loading, and high-entropy token-looking literals. Returns high_risk, medium_risk, secrets, clean files and a summary. Max depth 3; skips pycache, .git, venv, node_modules.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_pathYesRepo path (relative to --root or absolute).
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states pure AST analysis, zero LLM calls, risk classification levels, secret detection, max depth 3, and skipped directories. Could mention whether the tool is read-only (likely yes) but overall quite transparent.

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?

Description is front-loaded with the main action and packed with relevant details in three sentences. Minimal redundancy, though length could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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?

Given no output schema, description adequately explains return values (high_risk, medium_risk, secrets, clean files, summary). Covers key behaviors and limitations. Could mention file type filtering but sufficient for an agent to understand scope.

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?

Only one parameter (repo_path) with 100% schema coverage. Description adds no extra detail beyond the schema's description of the path. Baseline score is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it walks a Python repo using AST analysis to find dangerous function calls and secrets, with specific risk classifications. No sibling tool overlaps, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use (security scanning of Python repos) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings. More precise guidance would improve this dimension.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LoudiliMed/Refract'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server