Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Security Scanner MCP Server

Security Scanner MCP Server

by friendlygeorge
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

generate_sbom

Read-only

Generate a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) for any Docker image, listing all packages and dependencies in CycloneDX or SPDX format.

Instructions

Generate a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) for a Docker image in CycloneDX or SPDX format. The SBOM lists all packages and dependencies in the image.

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": "generate_sbom"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNoImage tag
imageYesDocker image to generate SBOM for
formatNoSBOM output format (default: cyclonedx)
outputNoFile path to write SBOM (if omitted, returns in response)
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds (default: 120)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the SBOM lists packages and dependencies, and includes a timeout parameter hinting at potential network delays. However, it does not disclose requirements like Docker daemon access or behavior on non-existent images, so transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and formats, the second explains what the SBOM contains. No superfluous information; every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and parameters. It mentions output format and return behavior (if output omitted, returns in response). However, it does not specify the precise response format (e.g., JSON string matching the chosen SBOM format) or error handling. Given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete but could be slightly more explicit about the return structure.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only stating the formats (CycloneDX, SPDX) and the general output content. For a high-coverage schema, the baseline is 3, and no additional semantic value is provided.

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 explicitly states the tool generates an SBOM for a Docker image in CycloneDX or SPDX format. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_image (vulnerability scanning) and scan_sbom (analyzing existing SBOMs) by focusing on SBOM generation.

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 (generate SBOM for Docker image) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_image or scan_sbom. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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