Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Security Scanner MCP Server

Security Scanner MCP Server

by friendlygeorge
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

cross_validate

Read-only

Scans a Docker image with both Trivy and Grype, then compares results to identify vulnerabilities unique to each engine's database for broader coverage.

Instructions

Scan a Docker image with BOTH Trivy and Grype, then compare results. Surfaces vulnerabilities found by only one engine (different databases = different coverage). This is the key differentiator — no other MCP server offers multi-engine cross-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": {
      "image": "<image>"
    },
    "name": "cross_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNoImage tag
imageYesDocker image to scan with both engines
timeoutNoTimeout per engine in seconds (default: 120)
severityNoSeverities to compare (default: CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no safety concerns. Description adds behavioral context: it compares results from two engines and surfaces unique vulnerabilities, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core 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.

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with no output schema, the description explains the comparison logic but does not describe the return format, error handling, or expected response structure. Adequate but has gaps.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning or examples for parameters like image, tag, timeout, or severity beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool scans a Docker image with both Trivy and Grype and compares results. It specifies the unique value proposition (multi-engine cross-validation), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_image or scan_image_grype.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly differentiates from other tools by stating it offers multi-engine cross-validation, which is the key differentiator. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond that.

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