Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Documentation Search MCP Server

Documentation Search MCP Server

by gemini2026
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

snyk_scan_project

Scan project dependencies with Snyk to generate a comprehensive security report for all dependencies.

Instructions

Scan entire project dependencies using Snyk.

Args:
    project_path: Path to the project directory (default: current directory)

Returns:
    Comprehensive security report for all project dependencies

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": "snyk_scan_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathNo.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.6.1
  2. Removedv1.9.0
  3. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose key behaviors such as network requirements, file modifications, error handling, or the format of the security report. For a scanning tool, more transparency is needed.

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 plus a short Args section). It is front-loaded with purpose, though the docstring-like structure is acceptable. Could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Lacking output schema and annotations, the description should cover prerequisites, error conditions, and result details. As it stands, it is insufficient for an agent to fully understand usage and expectations.

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 0%, so the description adds meaning by explaining that project_path is the path to the project directory with a default of current directory. However, it lacks details on accepted formats or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it scans entire project dependencies using Snyk and returns a security report. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_project_dependencies' or 'scan_library_vulnerabilities', which may cause confusion.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites (e.g., Snyk installation, authentication). The description only implies usage through the action 'scan entire project dependencies'.

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