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

sphior-code-mcp

by Toraastrta
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

mark_false_positive

Mark a reported vulnerability as a false positive when it is not exploitable in the specific code context, and optionally record the reason.

Instructions

Mark a finding as a false positive (the reported vulnerability is not actually exploitable). Use this when the AI's detection is incorrect for a specific code context.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "findingId": "<findingId>"
    },
    "name": "mark_false_positive"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoOptional reason why this is a false positive
findingIdYesFinding UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the state change (marking a finding as a false positive) and the criterion for doing so. It says nothing about whether the change is reversible, how it affects the finding's status or any security metrics, or what permissions are needed for this mutation.

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?

Two tight sentences, the action is front-loaded, and no words are wasted. It is about as compact as a definition of this scope can be without dropping needed information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, one required, full schema coverage, no output schema), so little explanation is needed. However, for an unannotated mutation, leaving the post-call effect and reversibility unstated is a real gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 both findingId (Finding UUID) and the optional reason parameter are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, identifier, or reason-content guidance beyond what is provided there, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Mark a finding as a false positive") and clarifies the semantics in parentheses so the agent understands this means the vulnerability is not exploitable. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely related resolve_finding sibling.

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?

"Use this when the AI's detection is incorrect for a specific code context" supplies a concrete trigger condition that an agent can evaluate before calling. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming an alternative such as resolve_finding.

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