Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sphior-code-mcp

sphior-code-mcp

by Toraastrta
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_security_summary

Retrieve a high-level security posture summary, including severity counts, last scan time, and monitored repository totals, to quickly assess overall security health.

Instructions

Get the user's overall security posture: counts by severity, last scan time, and number of monitored repos. Use this when the user wants a high-level overview of their security health.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_security_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned metrics, which implies a read-only aggregate, but says nothing about permissions, data freshness/staleness, or rate limits beyond the presence of 'last scan time'.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the first front-loads what is returned, the second front-loads the usage condition. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 no output schema, the description must describe the return values, and it does so by listing the three metric groups. It stops short of describing the response shape or how counts are grouped, but is otherwise sufficient for a zero-parameter read-only summary.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no inputs whose semantics need explanation. The description correctly implies the summary is scoped to the current user with no filtering options.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the user's overall security posture') and enumerates the contents: severity counts, last scan time, and monitored repo count. It is clearly a high-level aggregate rather than a per-finding tool, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger condition: use when the user wants a high-level overview of security health. It does not state when to avoid this tool or which sibling to use for drill-down (e.g. list_findings), so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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