Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Sentinela

Sentinela

by alissonandrade1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sentinela_detect_stack

Identify a project's language, framework, ORM, database, auth provider, and hosting from its root path to inform stack-aware security audits.

Instructions

Detecta a stack de um projeto: linguagem, framework, ORM, banco de dados, auth provider, hosting.

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_detect_stack"
  }
}

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 describes only the detection targets and says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what permissions or filesystem access it needs, or what form the result takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and the detected items listed compactly. No filler, though it could signal context of use without bloating.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Appropriate for a simple one-parameter detection tool, and the enumerated outputs give the agent a reasonable expectation of content. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about the return shape and read-only nature to be fully self-sufficient.

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 a single required parameter, project_path, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Detecta) and resource (stack de um projeto), and enumerates the concrete outputs: linguagem, framework, ORM, banco de dados, auth provider, hosting. This clearly distinguishes it from the audit_* siblings, which scan for vulnerabilities rather than identifying the project's technology stack.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or a recommended ordering relative to the sentinela_audit_* tools. The agent must infer that this is an introductory reconnaissance step.

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