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

mcp-security-scanner

by badchars
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sast_insecure_crypto

Analyzes source code to detect weak cryptographic practices, such as MD5, SHA1, DES, RC4, and insecure random number generation.

Instructions

Detect weak cryptography: createHash('md5'), createHash('sha1'), Math.random() for token generation, DES/RC4 usage.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "sast_insecure_crypto"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesDirectory path containing source files to analyze

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, description carries full burden. It lists what it detects but does not explicitly state read-only nature, permissions, or side effects. Assumed non-destructive analysis but not explicit.

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?

One-sentence description efficiently conveys purpose with specific examples. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Adequate for a scanning tool but lacks description of output format or expected return values. Given no output schema, the description could be more complete by hinting at findings structure.

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 provides full coverage for the single 'path' parameter with clear description. Description adds no extra parameter semantics, but baseline is met given low parameter complexity.

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?

Description clearly states it detects weak cryptography and lists specific algorithms (MD5, SHA1, DES/RC4, Math.random for tokens), distinguishing it from sibling SAST tools focusing on other vulnerabilities.

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. Does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context where other tools are more appropriate.

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