Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
code-guardian

code-guardian

by LuminariSoftwares
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Explain a scan

explain
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scans a project, posts redacted findings to your configured local model, and returns plain-English scores and notes.

Instructions

A scan summarised in plain English by the local model the server is configured with (CODE_GUARDIAN_LLM_URL, not arguments). Use scan for the findings. Scans, then POSTs redacted findings to that one URL: the only tool using the network; it writes nothing. Returns scores, explanation, notes.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNoOptional; default code-guardian.goal.toml.
pathYesThe project directory to read; must exist.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.3.4
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / goal / description
      Previous value: -"goal contract file; default PATH/code-guardian.goal.toml if present"New value: +"Optional; default code-guardian.goal.toml."
    • addedInput schema / properties / goal / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "goal.toml"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / goal / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"the project directory to read"New value: +"The project directory to read; must exist."
    • addedInput schema / properties / path / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "."
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / path / minLength
      Added value: +1
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds that it POSTs redacted findings to one configured URL, is the only network-using tool, and writes nothing. It also clarifies that the model URL comes from an environment variable rather than an argument. It does not describe failure modes or output determinism.

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?

Four short sentences are front-loaded with purpose and the key alternative before behavior and return values. There is no filler, and the terse "Scans, then POSTs..." phrasing is dense but effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description still lists the return values (scores, explanation, notes). It covers network use and redaction, while the schema and annotations handle parameters and safety, so the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents both path and goal. The description adds only that CODE_GUARDIAN_LLM_URL is not an argument, but it does not add meaning or syntax for the actual parameters.

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 states a specific verb+resource: a scan summarised in plain English by the configured local model. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the scan sibling by saying "Use scan for the findings."

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 clearly routes agents to the scan tool when they need the findings, which is a useful alternative. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use explain or how it relates to the other siblings diff, plan, and orphans.

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