Skip to main content
Glama
TateLyman

shipcheck-mcp

by TateLyman

Scan repository with Shipcheck

scan_repository

Scans a local JavaScript/TypeScript repository for launch risks including exposed environment variables, unsigned webhooks, and missing security guardrails.

Instructions

Run Shipcheck on a local JavaScript or TypeScript repo the user owns or is authorized to inspect.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootNoLocal path to the repository root..
formatNoReport format to return.text
failOnNoLowest severity that should mark the report as failing.high
strictNoEnable stricter release-readiness checks.
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only hints at authorization but does not state whether the operation is read-only, modifies files, requires network, or has rate limits. This is insufficient for a scanning tool.

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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and conditions, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what Shipcheck is, what the report contains, or how the 'failOn' and 'strict' parameters affect behavior. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to select the tool confidently.

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 each parameter is already documented. The overall description adds context about the tool being for JS/TS repos, but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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 the verb (Run Shipcheck), the resource (local JavaScript or TypeScript repo), and includes an authorization condition. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation is not required.

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 usage on local JS/TS repos the user is authorized to inspect, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use it, nor any alternatives since there are no siblings.

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/TateLyman/shipcheck-mcp'

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