Skip to main content
Glama
Synvoya

CodeInspectus

by Synvoya
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Explain a finding in depth

codeinspectus_explain_finding
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a deep explanation and remediation plan for a specific security finding from a prior scan, including weakness details, why it matters, concrete fixes, and references.

Instructions

Return a deep explanation and full remediation plan for a single finding id from a prior scan: what the weakness is, why it matters, concrete fix steps, and references.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scan_idYesscan_id the finding belongs to.
finding_idYesThe finding id (e.g. CI-0007) to explain in depth.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
findingYes
referencesYes
explanationYes
remediationYes
why_it_mattersYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv2.5.0
    • changedOutput schema / properties / finding / properties / engine / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "opengrep",
-  "gitleaks",
-  "trivy",
-  "codeinspectus-ai"
-]New value: +[
+  "opengrep",
+  "gitleaks",
+  "trivy",
+  "codeinspectus-ai",
+  "codeinspectus-pub"
+]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / finding / properties / finding_kind
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "vulnerability",
+    "license",
+    "misconfiguration",
+    "secret",
+    "sast",
+    "ai",
+    "other"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / finding / properties / owasp_api
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / finding / properties / producer_components
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / finding / properties / scope_role
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "primary",
+    "supporting_context"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / finding / properties / vulnerability_aliases
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / scan_id / pattern
      Added value: +"^scan-[0-9a-f]{8}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{12}$"
  3. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds value by clarifying that it returns a full remediation plan and references, which is beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 a single sentence that efficiently covers purpose, content, and context without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes all key elements.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. The tool is clear for a read-only operation, and the parameters are well-defined in schema. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minor value by explaining the output context ('from a prior scan') and giving example finding ID (CI-0007) in the schema, but it doesn't elaborate on the structure or format beyond that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns a deep explanation and remediation plan for a single finding, distinguishing it from scan/rescan tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with listing findings or compliance report, but the focus on 'single finding id' and 'remediation' sets it apart.

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 it is used after a prior scan to get details on a specific finding, but it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like compliance_report for broader context. It relies on the sibling list to imply context.

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/Synvoya/codeinspectus'

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