Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Security Scanner MCP Server

Security Scanner MCP Server

by friendlygeorge
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

scan_filesystem_grype

Read-only

Scan a local directory or file for vulnerabilities using Grype. Cross-validates against Trivy filesystem scans. Parameters: path, severity, only-fixed, timeout.

Instructions

Scan a local directory or file for vulnerabilities using Grype. Cross-validates against Trivy filesystem scans.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "scan_filesystem_grype"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesDirectory or file path to scan (uses dir: or file: source)
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds (default: 120)
severityNoMinimum severity (default: critical,high,medium)
only_fixedNoOnly show fixable vulnerabilities

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming safety. The description adds behavioral context about cross-validation against Trivy scans, but does not discuss resource intensity or other side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose, no filler or redundant words.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral trait, but lacks information about output format or expected results (no output schema), and does not mention prerequisites or supported file types.

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 all parameters (path, timeout, severity, only_fixed) are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is already 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 clearly states the verb 'scan' and the resource 'local directory or file', and specifies the tool 'Grype'. It also mentions cross-validation against Trivy, which distinguishes it from generic scanning tools like 'scan_filesystem'.

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 use for Grype-based scanning and cross-validation, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'scan_filesystem' or 'scan_filesystem_grype'.

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