Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
scopeguard-mcp

scopeguard-mcp

by Wsh7Ash
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

check_target

Verify a URL or host against authorized testing scope rules and return an allow/deny verdict with the matching rule, without DNS lookups or network connections.

Instructions

Check whether a URL or host is inside the authorized testing scope. Returns an allow/deny verdict with the matching rule. Performs no network activity: no DNS lookups, no connections.

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "check_target"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesURL or host[:port] to verify, e.g. https://staging.example.test

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (allow/deny verdict plus matching rule) and explicitly rules out side effects ('no DNS lookups, no connections'), which is exactly the safety profile an agent needs. It stops short of stating error behavior for malformed input or whether an unmatched target is denied by default.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the return value and the no-side-effects guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, return value, and side-effect profile adequately. The only gap is what happens on invalid or out-of-scope input (fail-open vs fail-closed), which an agent gating its actions would benefit from knowing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'target' parameter is already documented with a format example, so the schema does the work. The description adds no additional semantics about accepted formats or edge cases beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a URL or host is inside the authorized testing scope.' This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools (cvss_base, redact, list_findings, add_finding), none of which deal with scope validation.

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 phrase 'authorized testing scope' implies this is a pre-flight gate before acting on a target, but the description never explicitly says when to call it (e.g., before scanning or before add_finding) or what to do with a deny verdict. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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