Skip to main content
Glama

Scan code for security issues

codeinspectus_scan
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan a local code path for security vulnerabilities using bundled SAST, secrets, SCA, and AI-specific checks. Fully offline with CWE-keyed findings and remediation recommendations.

Instructions

Run a full local security scan of a path: bundled engines (Opengrep SAST, Gitleaks secrets, Trivy SCA/IaC/license) plus CodeInspectus's AI-code-specific checks (client-side secret exposure, Supabase RLS/inverted-auth, prompt-injection sinks). Returns CWE-keyed findings with fix recommendations and compliance tags. Fully offline — zero network egress at scan time. Never writes to your code or repo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to the repository or directory to scan.
scannersNoLimit which scanner classes run: sast, secret, vuln, misconfig, license, ai. Default: all.
max_findingsNoCap the number of findings returned to protect agent context (default: 200).
include_complianceNoInclude the per-framework compliance overview in the result (default: true).
severity_thresholdNoOnly return findings at or above this severity (default: info — all).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
offlineYes
scan_idYes
summaryYes
findingsYes
warningsYes
truncatedYes
disclaimerYes
git_safetyYes
started_atYes
duration_msYes
engines_runYes
scan_configNo
trivy_db_dateNo
engine_detailsYes
compliance_overviewNo
total_findings_before_limitYes
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds important behavioral details: 'Fully offline — zero network egress at scan time' and 'Never writes to your code or repo', which reinforce safety and align with annotations. No contradictions.

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?

The description is concise (two sentences) but packs in key information: bundled engines, AI checks, output format, offline mode, and no-write guarantee. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly verbose for the sibling context, but well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, output schema, annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what engines it uses, output characteristics, offline safety, and non-destructiveness. The output schema handles return format details. No gaps remain.

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?

All 5 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, mentioning 'path' and 'scanners' implicitly but not adding new details. Baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states it runs a full local security scan using multiple engines (Opengrep SAST, Gitleaks, Trivy, AI checks) and returns CWE-keyed findings. It distinguishes itself from siblings like compliance_report or explain_finding by focusing on scanning and including a list of specific scanners.

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 mentions 'full local security scan' and 'Fully offline' implying it's for comprehensive offline scanning, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like compliance_report or rescan. No usage exclusions are provided.

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