Skip to main content
Glama
Shrike-Security

Shrike Security MCP Server

report_bypass

Report security bypasses such as prompt injection, file secrets, and SQL injections to activate adaptive learning and improve detection accuracy for all users.

Instructions

Call this when: (a) a user reports that harmful content received a safe verdict, (b) a downstream system detects an issue that scanning missed (e.g., a WAF blocks a request that Shrike allowed), or (c) post-processing analysis reveals content that should have been caught.

Supports multiple bypass types:

  • Prompt bypasses: Use 'prompt' field

  • File write bypasses: Use 'filePath' and/or 'fileContent' fields

  • SQL bypasses: Use 'sqlQuery' field

  • Web search bypasses: Use 'searchQuery' field

Include mutationType if known (semantic_rewrite, encoding_exploit, unicode_tricks, etc.) and category for better classification. The bypass is analyzed and may generate a new detection pattern via ThreatSense adaptive learning.

Enterprise context: Every bypass report strengthens detection for all users. Security teams can track bypass patterns over time for compliance reporting and coverage gap analysis.

ERROR HANDLING: If this tool returns an error, log the bypass details locally and retry later. Bypass reports are non-blocking — do NOT halt your pipeline on report_bypass failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
promptNoThe prompt that bypassed security detection
filePathNoFile path for file_write bypasses (e.g., config.yaml with undetected secrets)
fileContentNoFile content that should have been blocked (e.g., AWS keys, SSN)
sqlQueryNoSQL query that bypassed injection detection
searchQueryNoWeb search query with undetected PII
mutationTypeNoType of mutation used (e.g., semantic_rewrite, encoding_exploit, unicode_tricks)
categoryNoThreat category (auto-inferred if not provided)
notesNoAdditional notes about the bypass
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open world. The description adds that analysis may generate new detection patterns via ThreatSense learning, which is a non-obvious behavioral trait. It also explains error handling but could further detail side effects.

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 well-structured with bullet points and sections (scenarios, field mapping, error handling, enterprise context). It is front-loaded with the core conditions and every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, all optional) and absence of output schema, the description covers usage scenarios, field semantics, error handling, and enterprise impact. It lacks explicit return value documentation, but the error handling implies a non-blocking call, making it reasonably complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping each bypass type to specific fields (e.g., prompt for prompt bypasses, filePath/fileContent for file writes) and explaining the enum options for mutationType and category, thus providing context beyond the schema.

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's purpose: reporting bypass incidents where harmful content was missed. It enumerates three specific scenarios (a, b, c) and lists bypass types (prompt, file write, SQL, web search), distinguishing it from sibling scanning tools by focusing on reporting missed detections.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use conditions (three bullet points) and includes error handling instructions specifying non-blocking behavior and retry logic. It implicitly guides against use when no bypass occurred and contrasts with scanning tools.

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/Shrike-Security/shrike-mcp'

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