Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
antigravity-mcp

antigravity-mcp

by NohchiyBors
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

agy_security_audit

Audit files for OWASP vulnerabilities and credential leaks to uncover security risks before they become breaches.

Instructions

Perform a strict security audit on target files, scanning for OWASP vulnerabilities and credential leaks.

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": {
      "filesToAudit": "<filesToAudit>"
    },
    "name": "agy_security_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNo
filesToAuditYesTarget files or folders (space-separated paths)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 disclosing behavior. It states the tool scans for vulnerabilities but does not clarify whether files are modified, what the output looks like, or any permissions needed. The term 'audit' suggests read-only but is not explicit, leaving significant ambiguity.

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?

A single, direct sentence with no redundant wording. It effectively front-loads the core functionality and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete for confident tool invocation. It omits return format, the purpose of the 'model' parameter, and any side effects, leaving critical gaps for the agent to navigate.

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 coverage is only 50% (filesToAudit is described, model is not). The description adds no new meaning to filesToAudit beyond the schema and completely ignores the 'model' parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Perform') and identifies the resource ('target files'), with a clear scope: scanning for OWASP vulnerabilities and credential leaks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agy_analyze or agy_refactor, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 use for security auditing but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention when to choose this over agy_analyze or other analysis tools, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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