Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Sentinela

Sentinela

by alissonandrade1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sentinela_audit_tests

Audit a project's tests domain for security and compliance issues, returning structured findings that help identify and prioritize fixes.

Instructions

Audita o domínio "tests" (Seção 14). 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_tests"
  }
}

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

C2.9/5.0
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 discloses only that it returns structured findings; it says nothing about read-only behavior, whether it modifies the project, what it reads, or whether findings are rule-based. The Section 14 reference hints at a ruleset but is not explained.

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 action and the return type, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity veers toward under-specification rather than crisp completeness.

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?

For an un-annotated audit tool with no output schema and no explanation of what the "tests" domain means or what findings contain, the definition leaves the agent guessing. It should say more given the crowded sibling set and lack of structured behavioral hints.

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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema fully documents project_path as an absolute root path. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (audita) and resource (dom nio "tests", Seo 14), which lets it sit alongside the domain-specific sentinela_audit_* siblings consistently. However, it never clarifies what the "tests" domain actually covers for a security audit, and it does not distinguish itself from sentinela_audit_full, which likely subsumes it.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. With ~30 sibling audit tools plus sentinela_audit_full, an agent has no signal telling it when to pick this one over the full audit or any other domain audit.

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