Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Security Scanner MCP Server

Security Scanner MCP Server

by friendlygeorge
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

scan_sbom

Read-only

Scan a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) file to identify known vulnerabilities in dependencies. Supports CycloneDX and SPDX formats.

Instructions

Scan a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) file for known vulnerabilities. Accepts CycloneDX or SPDX format SBOMs.

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": {
      "sbom_path": "<sbom_path>"
    },
    "name": "scan_sbom"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds (default: 120)
severityNoSeverities to filter
sbom_pathYesPath to SBOM file (CycloneDX or SPDX format)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, indicating no side effects. Description adds that it scans for vulnerabilities, which is a read operation. No further behavioral traits (e.g., network usage, database updates) are disclosed, but annotations already cover safety.

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 sentences covering purpose and accepted formats. Front-loaded with the key action, no wasted 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?

Tool has moderate complexity with 3 params and no output schema. Description covers input but does not explain return format, error conditions, or how results are presented, leaving the agent with incomplete information for invocation.

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 baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond schema details; sbom_path mentions format (already in schema), timeout and severity are self-explanatory.

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 SBOM files for vulnerabilities and accepts CycloneDX or SPDX formats. The verb 'scan' is specific to the resource 'SBOM file', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_image or 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?

Description indicates when to use the tool (to scan an SBOM file), but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling tools suggest other scenarios, but no explicit exclusions or context on prerequisites.

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