Skip to main content
Glama

Static-scan MCP tool definitions for injection and exfil

static_scan_tools
Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect prompt-injection, credential, and hidden-Unicode risks in advertised MCP tool definitions, then return findings with a gate score and ruleset digest.

Instructions

Run only the static-scan gate (ruleset v4, 25 signatures with context guards) over advertised tool names, descriptions, and input schemas. Returns findings, a 0..1 gate score, and the published ruleset digest.

When to use: you have a tools/list dump and want injection / credential / hidden-Unicode hits without origin, pinning, or the threat feed. Cheaper and narrower than vet_mcp_server.

When NOT to use: you need the full host decision (vet_mcp_server); you want operator glob classification (classify_sensitive_tools); you want the published rule table itself (list_scan_rules).

Behaviour: local regex+guard evaluation, no network, no mutation. Advisory-tier hits are reported with advisory=true and do not reduce the score. Does not launch servers or send tool output to a model.

Returns structured JSON matching outputSchema. Example: static_scan_tools({ tools: [{ name: "add", description: "Add two integers.", inputSchema: { type: "object" } }] }).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolsYestools/list items to scan (1..256). Same shape as vet_mcp_server.tools.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreYesstatic-scan gate contribution: 1 minus the penalty for the worst non-advisory severity. Advisory hits do not change this number.
rulesetYes
findingsYesHits from the 25-rule table, including advisory-only codes.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations: local regex+guard evaluation, no network access, no mutation, no server launching, and advisory-tier hits flagged with advisory=true that do not reduce the score. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is longer than average, but each section earns its place: purpose, routing conditions, behavioral caveats, and a concrete example. The When to use / When NOT to use structure is scannable and front-loads the key decisions.

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?

Given the rich annotations, full input schema, output schema, and sibling context, the description covers everything an agent needs to call correctly: scope, score range, advisory behavior, side-effect guarantees, and alternative routing. Nothing important is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the tools parameter and its nested properties. The description adds value by instructing the agent to pass descriptions and input schemas through unmodified, warning that rewriting hides injection surfaces, and noting the shape matches vet_mcp_server.tools.

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 action ('Run only the static-scan gate') over a specific resource ('advertised tool names, descriptions, and input schemas'), then identifies the outputs. It clearly distinguishes itself from vet_mcp_server, classify_sensitive_tools, and list_scan_rules via the When NOT to use section.

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?

Contains explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections. It names the triggering condition (having a tools/list dump and wanting injection/credential/hidden-Unicode hits) and lists sibling tools that should be used instead for broader analysis or rule retrieval.

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/alexar76/warden'

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