antideploy-mcp

Official

by antideploy

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

Result of a security scan

security_scan_status

Read-only

Polls a security scan by scanId until it completes or fails, returning severity-rated findings with explanations and recommendations for root-cause fixes and rescanning.

Instructions

Status and findings, each with a severity, a plain explanation and a recommendation. Poll until completed or failed. Fix each finding at its root, then scan again.

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": {
      "scanId": "<scanId>"
    },
    "name": "security_scan_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scanId`	Yes	The scanId returned by `security_scan`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing terminal states (`completed`/`failed`), the finding structure, and the recommended remediation loop.

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?

Three short sentences carry the result shape, polling behavior, and remediation workflow with no wasted text. The most actionable guidance is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 simple read-only status tool with no output schema, the description explains the relevant return content and the polling condition well enough for an agent to use it correctly. The annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers the workflow and findings shape.

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 only one parameter and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that `scanId` comes from `security_scan`. The description does not add further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description states that the tool returns scan status and findings, including severity, explanation, and recommendation. This clearly identifies a status/result retrieval operation, though it does not explicitly name the sibling `security_scan` as its counterpart.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear operational guidance: poll until completed or failed, fix findings at their root, then scan again. This establishes the intended workflow with `security_scan`, but it does not spell out when not to use this tool or explicitly name the alternative tool.

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