Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-security-scanner

mcp-security-scanner

by badchars
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

report_compare

Compare two JSON scan reports to identify new, resolved, and unchanged findings, regression count, and OWASP category trends.

Instructions

Compare two scan reports (JSON format). Shows new findings, resolved findings, unchanged findings, regression count, and OWASP category trends.

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": {
      "before_path": "<before_path>",
      "after_path": "<after_path>"
    },
    "name": "report_compare"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
after_pathYesPath to the later scan report (JSON)
before_pathYesPath to the earlier scan report (JSON)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 what the tool shows but does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any side effects, which is adequate for a comparison tool.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs without unnecessary words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the key functionality and output types, compensating for the lack of an output schema. Minor omissions like input validation or error handling prevent a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description reiterates 'JSON format' but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

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?

The description clearly states the tool compares two scan reports in JSON format and lists specific outputs (new, resolved, unchanged findings, regression count, OWASP trends), distinguishing it from sibling report tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for comparing two reports but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, nor any prerequisites or limitations.

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