Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Sentinela

Sentinela

by alissonandrade1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sentinela_audit_secrets

Audits a project's secrets for exposed credentials, hardcoded keys, and misconfigurations, returning structured findings to guide remediation.

Instructions

Audita o domínio "secrets" (Seção 13). Retorna findings estruturados.

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": {
      "project_path": "<project_path>"
    },
    "name": "sentinela_audit_secrets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathYesCaminho absoluto para o diretório raiz do projeto

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says findings are returned in structured form; nothing is disclosed about read-only nature, scope of the scan, severity output, permissions, or behavior on projects without secrets.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the audited domain and followed by the return shape. No filler, though the parenthetical section reference is of marginal value.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the findings contain and how this audit differs from sentinela_audit_secrets_mgmt. Neither is present, leaving the agent unable to confidently select or interpret the tool.

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% and the single parameter (project_path) is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb+resource ("Audita o domínio 'secrets'"), so the basic purpose is legible. However, it fails to distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling sentinela_audit_secrets_mgmt, and the opaque "(Seção 13)" reference adds no discriminating information for an agent.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other audit_* siblings, and critically no clarification against sentinela_audit_secrets_mgmt. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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