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

mcp-security-scanner

by badchars
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sast_regex_dos

Analyze source files to find ReDoS vulnerabilities such as nested quantifiers, overlapping alternations, and backreferences in quantified groups.

Instructions

Detect ReDoS patterns: nested quantifiers (a+)+, alternation with overlap, backreferences in quantified groups.

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_regex_dos"
  }
}

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
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It states detection but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, file traversal scope, or output format. Agent cannot infer safety or side effects.

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?

Single sentence front-loaded with purpose and examples. No redundant 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?

Tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. Description covers core purpose but lacks context on how results are returned or whether it alters state. Adequate for basic understanding.

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 covers the single parameter adequately (path with description). Description adds no additional semantic value beyond schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 it detects ReDoS patterns with specific examples like nested quantifiers and alternation with overlap. This distinguishes it from broader regex tools like sast_unsafe_regex among siblings.

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?

Implicitly suggests use for ReDoS detection but does not explicitly compare to siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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