Skip to main content
Glama
code-alchemist01

Development Tools MCP Server

check_compliance

Verify code files against security standards like OWASP and CWE to ensure compliance with established security requirements.

Instructions

Check code compliance with security standards (simplified)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesYesFile paths to check
standardNoCompliance standardgeneral

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler logic for the 'check_compliance' tool. It processes input files, scans them for security issues using SecurityAnalyzer, and returns a formatted compliance report indicating compliance status and issue details.
    case 'check_compliance': {
      const files = params.files as string[];
      const standard = (params.standard as string) || 'general';
      const codeFiles = await FileReader.readFiles(files.join(','));
      const issues = await securityAnalyzer.scanSecurityIssues(codeFiles);
      
      return {
        standard,
        compliant: issues.length === 0,
        totalIssues: issues.length,
        issues: issues.map((issue) => ({
          type: issue.type,
          severity: issue.severity,
          location: issue.location,
          description: issue.description,
          recommendation: issue.recommendation,
        })),
      };
    }
  • Tool definition including name, description, and input schema specification for validating tool arguments (files array required, optional standard).
    {
      name: 'check_compliance',
      description: 'Check code compliance with security standards (simplified)',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          files: {
            type: 'array',
            items: { type: 'string' },
            description: 'File paths to check',
          },
          standard: {
            type: 'string',
            enum: ['owasp', 'cwe', 'general'],
            description: 'Compliance standard',
            default: 'general',
          },
        },
        required: ['files'],
      },
    },
  • src/server.ts:18-25 (registration)
    Registers the check_compliance tool (via inclusion in codeAnalysisTools) in the complete list of tools returned by the MCP ListTools handler.
    const allTools = [
      ...codeAnalysisTools,
      ...codeQualityTools,
      ...dependencyAnalysisTools,
      ...lintingTools,
      ...webScrapingTools,
      ...apiDiscoveryTools,
    ];
  • src/server.ts:62-64 (registration)
    Routes tool calls for check_compliance (detected via codeAnalysisTools membership) to the specific handleCodeAnalysisTool dispatcher.
    if (codeAnalysisTools.some((t) => t.name === name)) {
      result = await handleCodeAnalysisTool(name, args || {});
    } else if (codeQualityTools.some((t) => t.name === name)) {
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'check' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this involves external API calls, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. The 'simplified' hint suggests limitations but doesn't detail what aspects are simplified. For a security tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose language. The 'simplified' qualifier adds useful context without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, security-focused), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage guidelines, and output information. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is limited for a tool that likely produces important security results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what 'files' should contain beyond paths, how 'standard' choices differ, or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as checking code compliance with security standards, using specific verbs ('check') and resources ('code compliance', 'security standards'). It distinguishes itself from most siblings by focusing on compliance rather than analysis, scanning, or extraction, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'scan_security_issues' or 'check_vulnerabilities' which might have overlapping security concerns.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple security-related siblings like 'scan_security_issues' and 'check_vulnerabilities', there's no indication of what makes this compliance check different or when it should be preferred. The 'simplified' qualifier hints at a scope limitation but doesn't clarify specific use cases or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/code-alchemist01/development-tools-mcp-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server