Skip to main content
Glama
adog0822

@loxeai/mcp-server

by adog0822

Scan Infrastructure-as-Code for SOC 2 misconfigurations

scan_iac
Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify security misconfigurations in Infrastructure-as-Code and map findings to SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria. Runs locally, so file contents never leave your machine.

Instructions

Scans Infrastructure-as-Code for security misconfigurations and maps each finding to a SOC 2 Trust Services Criterion. Supports Terraform, CloudFormation, Kubernetes, Dockerfile, Helm, ARM and Bicep via a locally installed Checkov or Trivy.

The scan runs entirely on this machine. File contents are never transmitted anywhere.

Returns a SUMMARY AND A HANDOFF, not the findings themselves -- a real repository produces hundreds of findings. Call list_findings with the returned batchId to page through them, then get_finding for detail on a specific one.

The path MUST be absolute. Run pwd in the target directory if you need it.

Scope: SOC 2 Security category only. All 33 Common Criteria are catalogued, but an IaC scan is the primary evidence source for just 3 of them and partially informs 8 more -- the remaining 22 are out of reach of any infrastructure scan and need documents, people, or live cloud state. This server does not support ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI, NIST or GDPR. Do not claim coverage it does not have.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to the directory or file to scan. Must be absolute, not relative.
scannerNoForce a specific scanner. Omit to prefer Checkov, which has richer control metadata.
configPathNoOptional absolute path to a scanner config file (Checkov only).
frameworksNoRestrict the scan to these IaC frameworks. Omit to let the scanner auto-detect.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nextYes
caveatYes
countsYes
batchIdYesPass this to list_findings and get_finding.
scannerYes
scannedAtYes
fingerprintYesSHA-256 over the scanned input. An identical fingerprint across two scans proves the input did not change.
parseErrorsYesFiles the scanner could not parse. A partial result, NOT a clean one.
sanitizationYes
suppressionsYesChecks a developer explicitly suppressed in source. These do NOT appear as findings; a suppressed check is an accepted risk, not an absent one.
totalFindingsYesFindings produced before any cap. `counts` reflects this, not the retained list.
scannerVersionYes
findingsTruncatedYesTrue when the retained finding list was capped. A criterion with no findings may simply have had them dropped.
filesFingerprintedYes
frameworksDetectedYes
fingerprintTruncatedYesTrue when the fingerprint walk hit its file cap and covers only a subset of the tree.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the scan runs entirely on this machine, file contents are never transmitted, and the result is a summary/handoff rather than the full findings. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline and does not contradict it.

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 dense but each paragraph earns its place: core action, privacy guarantee, result handoff, path requirement, and scope boundary. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a multi-framework scanning tool, the description covers the essential operational details: supported frameworks, scanner choice, local-only execution, absolute path requirement, output handoff flow, and strict scope limitations. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed.

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 the baseline applies. The description reinforces that path must be absolute, but the schema already states this; it adds little new parameter-level meaning beyond what the structured definitions provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: scans Infrastructure-as-Code for security misconfigurations and maps each finding to a SOC 2 Trust Services Criterion. It also clarifies the tool's role relative to downstream siblings like list_findings and get_finding, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent what to do after scanning: call list_findings with the returned batchId, then get_finding for detail. It also scopes use to SOC 2 Security, lists unsupported standards, and warns against claiming unsupported coverage, which provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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/adog0822/loxeai-mcp-server'

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