PatchProof MCP

scan_repository

Identify vulnerabilities, secrets, and malformed inputs in a repository by parsing its manifest and lockfile. Scans safely with resource limits.

Instructions

Walk a repository root, parse its manifest and lockfile, and return a typed set of findings (vulnerabilities, secrets, malformed inputs). Safe by default: paths are resolved through security/paths.ts and the run is bounded by ResourceGovernor.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "scan_repository"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repoRoot`	No
`includeHidden`	No
`followSymlinks`	No
`maxFiles`	No
`maxBytes`	No
`maxDepth`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions safety features (path resolution via security/paths.ts, bounded by ResourceGovernor) and return type (typed findings). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or destructive nature beyond the safe-by-default claim.

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?

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. However, the lack of parameter details makes it feel incomplete, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It covers purpose and safety but omits parameter semantics, return value structure, and usage guidelines, leaving the agent underinformed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. Despite six parameters including 'repoRoot', 'includeHidden', 'maxFiles', etc., the description provides no explanation of their meaning, defaults, or valid values. This leaves the AI agent without the information needed to set parameters correctly.

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 action (walk, parse, return) and resource (repository root) and specifies three types of findings (vulnerabilities, secrets, malformed inputs). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like audit_dependencies and generate_sbom.

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 the tool is for general repository scanning but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Lacks guidance on prerequisites or context-specific usage.

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

Deploy Server