Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
scopeguard-mcp

scopeguard-mcp

by Wsh7Ash
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_finding

Append a security finding to the local ledger after re-checking the target against authorized scope and redacting evidence; rejects out-of-scope targets.

Instructions

Append a finding to the local ledger. The target is re-checked against the authorized scope and evidence is redacted automatically. Fails if the target is out of scope.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "target": "<target>",
      "evidence": "<evidence>"
    },
    "name": "add_finding"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cvssNoOptional CVSS:3.1 vector
titleYes
targetYes
evidenceYes
severityNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

It discloses critical behaviors beyond the input schema, specifically that the target is automatically re-checked against authorized scope and that evidence is redacted during the append process.

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 efficiently structured across two sentences, front-loading the core action and then detailing the necessary constraints and automated behaviors.

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?

For a tool with low schema description coverage, the definition is highly complete, covering the process (append), the constraints (out of scope failure), and the data handling (redaction). It provides sufficient context for successful invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Given that only 20% of the schema is described, the description is highly valuable. It gives semantic meaning to the 'target' and 'evidence' parameters by explaining that they trigger specific automated validation and redaction routines.

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 identifies the tool's function as appending a finding to the local ledger. It is distinct from siblings like 'list_findings' and 'check_target' by defining itself as a data creation/mutation operation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on expected outcomes: it fails if the target is out of scope, which sets a clear operational boundary for the agent's usage.

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