Spotter-SAST

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

enhanced_scan_file

Perform a multi-tool SAST scan on a single file with AI analysis, fix suggestions, and compliance checks for OWASP, PCI, or NIST.

Instructions

Perform comprehensive multi-tool SAST scan on a single file with AI-powered analysis

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": {
      "filepath": "<filepath>"
    },
    "name": "enhanced_scan_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filepath`	Yes	Absolute path to the file to scan
`tools`	No	Specific tools to use (default: auto-detect)
`policies`	No	Compliance policies to check (owasp, pci, nist)
`includeFixSuggestions`	No	Generate AI-powered fix suggestions
`user_token`	No	Authentication token

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'multi-tool SAST' and 'AI-powered analysis' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (user_token), rate limits, side effects, or whether the scan modifies files. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, which is concise. However, it is too brief; it could benefit from additional structure (e.g., bullet points) to convey important details without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. An AI agent would lack critical context for invoking this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter relationships or provide context that the schema lacks.

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'), resource ('single file'), and scope ('comprehensive multi-tool SAST scan with AI-powered analysis'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'scan_file' (basic) and 'enhanced_scan_directory' (directory-level).

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 for comprehensive single-file scans, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'scan_file' or 'enhanced_scan_directory'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.