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

mcp-security-scanner

by badchars
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sast_scan_directory

Run static analysis on a TypeScript/JavaScript directory: initializes AST, discovers source files, executes 11 analyzers, and returns aggregated findings sorted by severity.

Instructions

Run ALL static analysis checks on a TypeScript/JavaScript source directory. Initializes AST project, discovers source files, runs all 11 analyzers, and returns aggregated findings sorted by severity.

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_scan_directory"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesDirectory path containing TypeScript/JavaScript source files to analyze
tsconfig_pathNoPath to tsconfig.json (optional)
include_node_modulesNoInclude node_modules in scan (default: false)

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses initialization, discovery, and aggregation but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or performance impact. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, highly concise, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return type (aggregated findings sorted by severity) and mentions 11 analyzers. Lacks detail on output format but sufficient for understanding the tool's purpose.

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%, so baseline 3 applies. Description does not add extra meaning beyond naming parameters; path is clearly required but no further elaboration.

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 runs ALL static analysis checks on a TypeScript/JavaScript directory, initializes AST, discovers files, runs 11 analyzers, and returns aggregated findings sorted by severity. It distinguishes itself from sibling sast_* tools that focus on individual checks.

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 use for comprehensive scans but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like individual sast tools. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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