Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Code Review MCP Server

Code Review MCP Server

by contentforge-press
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

analyze_security

Scan source code to identify security vulnerabilities and get actionable remediation guidance. Provide code and optional language for targeted review.

Instructions

Analyze code for security vulnerabilities

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_security"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe code to analyze
languageNoProgramming language

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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. It implies a read-only analysis but does not disclose what the analysis returns (severity levels, CWE identifiers, fix suggestions), whether it is static or heuristic, or any limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified for a tool with an undocumented return shape.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the analysis output and usage context, but it does neither. For a security analysis tool with two parameters and siblings to disambiguate from, this is a significant gap.

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 both the code and language parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics, syntax, or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (Analyze) and a specific scope (security vulnerabilities), which is clearer than the tautological title. However, it offers no differentiation from the siblings review_code and suggest_improvements, leaving the agent to guess which analysis tool applies.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools review_code or suggest_improvements. The agent gets no context on the intended scenario, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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