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

mcp-security-scanner

by badchars
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sast_unsafe_regex

Scan source code for unsafe regular expressions created with user input, preventing ReDoS attacks and validation bypasses.

Instructions

Detect new RegExp() with user-controlled input without proper escaping. Attacker-controlled regex can cause ReDoS or bypass validation.

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_unsafe_regex"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesDirectory path containing source files to analyze

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what it detects, not how it operates (e.g., reads files, scans statically), what the output looks like, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and additional risk context. Every word is necessary and efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description explains the vulnerability and risk adequately. Missing output format details, but still essentially complete for a detection tool.

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?

The single parameter 'path' is well-described in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 detects 'new RegExp() with user-controlled input without proper escaping' and explains the risks (ReDoS or bypass). It distinguishes from siblings like sast_regex_dos by covering both ReDoS and validation bypass.

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 security code analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., sast_regex_dos) or provide context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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