guardvibe

by goklab

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries due to overlapping verbs: 'check_dependencies' vs 'scan_dependencies', 'check_code' vs 'scan_file', and 'check_project' vs 'scan_directory' all appear to perform similar security scans with subtle differences in input methods (content vs. disk vs. lockfiles) that are not immediately obvious from names alone.
Naming Consistency2/5
While most tools use snake_case, the semantic patterns are inconsistent: 'policy_check' reverses the 'check_*' convention used elsewhere, 'repo_security_posture' and 'security_stats' lack action verbs entirely, and 'guardvibe_doctor' uses a brand prefix absent from other tools. The mixing of 'analyze', 'audit', 'check', and 'scan' prefixes for similar operations creates confusion.
Tool Count2/5
With 29 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold where the set becomes unwieldy. While security is a broad domain, the significant overlap between check/scan variants suggests consolidation opportunities. The sheer volume will make tool selection difficult for agents despite the legitimate breadth of security workflows covered.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers nearly all aspects of security scanning: code analysis, dependency checking, secret detection (current and historical), configuration auditing, compliance reporting, PR review, and remediation guidance. Minor gaps exist in explicit scan lifecycle management (e.g., deleting or suppressing findings), but core CRUD workflows for security assessment are well represented.
Average 3.9/5 across 29 of 29 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the tool scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository includes a README.md file.
This repository includes a LICENSE file.
Latest release: v2.7.4
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
View server inspector
This server provides 29 tools. View schema
No known security issues or vulnerabilities reported.
Report a security issue
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (pass/fail with details) and identifies the .guardviberc configuration dependency. However, it omits safety characteristics (read-only vs destructive), error handling, and what happens if .guardviberc is missing.
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?
Three sentences with no redundant phrasing. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose first. The second sentence could clarify that mentioned features are config-file options rather than parameters.
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?
For a 2-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the essential contract by mentioning return values and configuration source. However, given the lack of annotations and presence of many similar sibling tools, it should explicitly state this is a read-only check and clarify configuration prerequisites.
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 has 100% coverage, establishing baseline 3. The description adds context that policies are defined in .guardviberc (relevant to path parameter), but confusingly lists features (severity thresholds, risk exceptions) that are not exposed as parameters, potentially misleading the agent about available input options.
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?
States specific action (check project) against specific resource (compliance policies in .guardviberc). However, it does not distinguish from siblings like compliance_report, audit_config, or check_project which likely overlap in functionality.
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?
Describes features (custom frameworks, severity thresholds) but provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like compliance_report or generate_policy. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose critical safety traits: whether it writes files to disk (destructive) or returns content (read-only), execution time expectations, or what happens if stack detection is ambiguous. Lists generated artifacts but omits behavior constraints.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and scope. Parenthetical examples (Next.js, Supabase, Stripe) and colon-separated output list efficiently communicate capabilities without verbosity. Zero 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?
For a 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers inputs. However, lacking both annotations and output schema, it should clarify whether generated policies are returned as text or written to project files. Missing this behavioral context leaves operational ambiguity.
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 has 100% description coverage ('Project root directory to scan', 'Output format'). Description aligns with schema (mentions scanning a project) but adds no syntax details, format examples, or semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score appropriate given complete schema coverage.
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?
Excellent specificity: states it scans to detect stack (Next.js, Supabase, Stripe, etc.) and generates tailored security policies. Lists concrete outputs (CSP headers, CORS config, RLS suggestions, rate limiting, security headers). The 'generate' verb clearly distinguishes it from sibling 'policy_check' (likely validation) and scanning tools.
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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'policy_check' or 'audit_config'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether project must be initialized) or when NOT to use (e.g., if policies already exist). Agent must infer usage from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, requiring the description to carry full behavioral disclosure. While it identifies the tool retrieves 'guidance,' it fails to disclose critical operational traits such as whether the operation is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what format the returned documentation takes (structured vs. plain text).
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 consists of exactly two sentences that efficiently communicate purpose and usage context without redundant or filler text. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct functional or contextual information.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, 100% schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the core functional purpose. However, it omits behavioral characteristics and return value details that would be necessary for a complete operational picture given the absence of annotations.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed examples for the 'topic' parameter. The description mentions 'topic, framework, or vulnerability type' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic information about parameter format, validation rules, or usage patterns beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states the tool 'Get[s] security best practices and guidance' (specific verb + resource) and clarifies scope as 'for a specific topic, framework, or vulnerability type.' The phrase 'Use this to learn how to write secure code' distinguishes it from active siblings like fix_code or scan_file. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar knowledge-base tools like explain_remediation.
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 provides a positive use case ('Use this to learn how to write secure code'), indicating when to employ the tool for educational purposes. However, it lacks negative constraints (when not to use) and does not name specific alternatives among the numerous sibling security tools to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses what gets inspected (.env, config files, source code) and mentions the .gitignore coverage check. However, it fails to state whether this is a read-only operation, what the scan returns (findings format/structure), or performance characteristics for large directories.
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?
Three sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action ('Scan files and directories...'), followed by specific targets and a unique secondary feature. Every clause earns its place; no redundant or filler text.
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?
Adequate for a 3-parameter tool, but gaps remain given the lack of output schema and annotations. The description omits what the scan returns (e.g., list of findings with severity/locations), how secrets are handled (masked/plaintext), and safety properties, which are important for a security scanning tool.
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%, providing full documentation for path, recursive, and format parameters. The description adds no additional semantic detail about parameter syntax, valid path formats, or the distinction between the output formats beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.
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?
Clearly states the tool scans for 'leaked secrets, API keys, tokens, and credentials' in files/directories, and specifies target file types (.env, config, source code). Distinguishes from general-purpose siblings like scan_directory via its specific focus on secrets/credentials and the unique mention of .gitignore coverage verification.
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?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like scan_secrets_history (git history), scan_changed_files (diffs), or scan_directory (general security). Does not mention prerequisites, scope limitations, or when recursive scanning is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully enumerates the security checks performed (OWASP Top 10, XSS, etc.), but omits the safety profile (read-only vs. destructive), output behavior, rate limits, or size constraints for the code parameter.
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 efficiently structured sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core capability with specific examples, while the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It successfully explains the tool's security focus but fails to describe return values, severity levels, or distinguish from the numerous sibling security tools available.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear enum values and types. The description does not add semantic nuance beyond the schema (e.g., expected code length, framework-specific requirements, or format selection guidance), warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 the specific action (analyze) and target (code) with concrete examples of vulnerability types (OWASP Top 10, XSS, SQL injection). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like `scan_file` (which likely scans files on disk) or `fix_code` (which applies fixes), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over similar tools.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use the tool ('when reviewing or writing code to catch security issues early'), but lacks explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives. It does not clarify when NOT to use this versus `fix_code` or `scan_file`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It effectively discloses output content by listing the seven sections returned (risk, impact, exploit, etc.), compensating for the missing output schema. However, it fails to state whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has 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 sentences, zero waste. The first front-loads the comprehensive output specification using a colon-separated list; the second states the value proposition. Every word earns its place with no redundant padding.
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?
Given no output schema exists, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the expected return content sections. With fully documented parameters and clear purpose, it is nearly complete, though it could mention that valid rule_id values come from GuardVibe scanning tools in the sibling set.
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%, with rule_id, code, and format all well-documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema (e.g., no examples of code snippet length limits or rule_id format beyond the schema's example), warranting the baseline score.
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 the tool provides 'deep explanation of a security finding' with specific output categories (risk, impact, exploit scenario, fix, test strategy). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'fix_code' by focusing on explanation rather than application, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 phrase 'Helps agents apply fixes correctly' implies this tool should be used when detailed context is needed before remediation. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g., 'use this before fix_code') or exclusion criteria (when to use get_security_docs instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond structured data by noting 'Reads the file directly' (indicating local filesystem access) and specifying the OSV database as the CVE source. However, with no annotations provided, it omits key behavioral traits like whether it requires network access, if it's read-only safe, or caching behavior.
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 with zero waste. Front-loaded with core action ('Parse... and check'), followed by examples and mechanism. Every word earns its place.
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?
Adequately covers input intent given 100% schema coverage, but lacks description of output structure or return values (no output schema exists). For a security scanning tool, omission of what the CVE report contains or error conditions leaves gaps.
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%, establishing baseline 3. Description reinforces manifest_path with concrete examples (package.json, requirements.txt) but adds no additional semantic detail for format parameter beyond schema's markdown/json description.
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?
Clearly states the specific action (parse lockfile/manifest and check for CVEs), identifies the resource (dependencies), cites the data source (OSV database), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying exact manifest formats (package.json, go.mod, etc.) that differentiate it from generic scanners like scan_file or scan_directory.
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?
Provides implied usage through specific file format examples and mentions direct file reading, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar sibling tool check_dependencies, or prerequisites like network access to OSV database.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully notes filesystem I/O behavior and return structure (security score A-F, metadata). However, it omits critical safety information (read-only vs destructive), permission requirements, or performance characteristics for large directories, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.
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?
Five sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by I/O behavior, return values, metadata details, and parameter-specific guidance. Every sentence earns its place with high information density and no redundancy.
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?
Compensates for missing output schema by describing return values (score, findings, metadata). However, given the tool's filesystem access and security context, the lack of safety/permission disclosure (coupled with no annotations) leaves the description incomplete for safe agent operation.
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%, with all five parameters (path, recursive, exclude, format, baseline) well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—merely restating the baseline comparison functionality already described in the parameter definition. Baseline score appropriate for high schema coverage.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Scan') and clear resource ('entire project directory'), explicitly targeting 'security vulnerabilities.' It effectively distinguishes from siblings like scan_file (single file), scan_dependencies (dependencies), or scan_changed_files (diff-only) by emphasizing 'entire project directory.'
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 provides implicit guidance via 'Reads files directly from the filesystem — no need to pass file contents,' indicating when to use this over content-passing tools. It also notes baseline usage for comparisons. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance regarding sibling tools like check_project or repo_security_posture.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the analysis mechanism ('following variable assignments through code') but omits safety profile (read-only vs. destructive), performance characteristics, or output structure (findings format, locations reported).
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 dense sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action ('Track user input'), followed by specific examples, value proposition, and technical mechanism. Every clause adds unique information about scope or capability.
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?
Given the lack of output schema, the description should ideally characterize return values (e.g., list of vulnerabilities, dataflow paths). While the input side is well-covered via the schema, the omission of output format or error behavior leaves a gap for a security analysis tool with no annotations.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the code parameter will be analyzed for tainted data flows, but does not elaborate on parameter syntax, validation rules, or provide examples beyond what the schema already documents.
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 uses specific verbs ('Track', 'Detects') and enumerates exact sources (request body, URL params, form data) and sinks (SQL queries, eval, file operations, redirects). It distinguishes from regex-based siblings (scan_file, check_code) by emphasizing 'variable assignments' and vulnerabilities 'that regex rules miss'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies when to use via 'Detects injection vulnerabilities that regex rules miss,' suggesting use for taint analysis when pattern matching is insufficient. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use sibling analyze_cross_file_dataflow versus this tool for single-file analysis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully identifies the data source (OSV database), adding useful behavioral context. However, it omits critical behavioral details such as output format (what CVE data is returned), rate limits, or whether the tool fails when vulnerabilities are found versus returning a list.
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 consists of exactly two high-value sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core capability, while the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers the input side but leaves gaps regarding return values and side effects. For a security auditing tool, additional context about what constitutes a 'check' result would be necessary for complete agent autonomy.
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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions the three ecosystems ('npm, PyPI, or Go'), which aligns with the schema's enum, but does not add significant semantic depth regarding parameter syntax or validation rules beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action ('Check'), specific resource types ('npm, PyPI, or Go packages'), and exact scope ('known security vulnerabilities (CVEs) using the OSV database'). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like scan_dependencies (which implies file scanning) and check_package_health (which implies general maintenance checks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence provides clear temporal guidance ('before adding new dependencies or to audit existing ones'), giving the agent concrete context for invocation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid when this tool isn't appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the analytical scope (four specific health checks) but omits operational details like network requirements, rate limits, error handling for non-existent packages, or whether results are cached.
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 well-structured sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality with specific analytical categories; the second provides clear usage timing. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably implies output content via the four listed analysis dimensions. However, it lacks explicit return value structure, severity scoring explanation, or error condition documentation expected for a security evaluation tool.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds context that packages are 'new dependencies,' which semantically frames the 'packages' parameter, but does not elaborate on the 'format' parameter beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('npm packages'), and enumerates four distinct analysis dimensions (typosquat risk, maintenance status, adoption metrics, deprecation). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'check_dependencies' by specifying this is for evaluating packages 'before adding new dependencies' rather than auditing existing project dependencies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use the tool ('before adding new dependencies') and the goal ('catch suspicious or risky packages'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named sibling alternatives, but the temporal context clearly positions it as a pre-installation gate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that the tool returns a JSON string (important behavioral detail given no output schema), but omits information about side effects, error handling, whether the scan is read-only or destructive, and what specific security issues it detects.
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?
Extremely efficient single-sentence structure that front-loads essential information: action, format, use case, and return type. Every clause earns its place with zero redundancy.
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?
While the description compensates for the missing output schema by stating it returns a JSON string, it lacks completeness for a security tool by not specifying what vulnerabilities or issues the scan targets (secrets, dependencies, etc.) given the presence of specialized scanning siblings.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'path' parameter, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'Scan a directory' which aligns with the schema but does not add additional semantic details like path format requirements (absolute vs. relative) or examples.
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 specific action (scanning a directory), output format (SARIF v2.1.0), and primary use case (CI/CD integration), distinguishing it from generic siblings like 'scan_directory' through the explicit format specification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for when to use the tool (CI/CD integration with GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparisons to sibling scanning tools like 'scan_directory' or 'scan_file'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully explains the unique cross-file analysis behavior (detecting mismatches between middleware and routes), but fails to disclose safety characteristics (read-only vs destructive), permission requirements, or whether the tool writes results to disk versus returning them. The term 'Audit' implies read-only access but this is not explicit.
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 consists of exactly two high-density sentences. The first establishes the core function and scope, while the second delivers the unique value proposition with concrete examples. There is no redundant text or filler; every word contributes to clarifying the tool's specific niche in cross-file configuration analysis.
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?
Given the complexity of analyzing multiple configuration files for security interactions, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and detection capabilities. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from a brief indication of what the audit returns (e.g., 'returns a security report'). The listing of specific vulnerability types (headers, routes, secrets) partially compensates for the missing output schema.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'path' documented as 'Project root directory to audit' and 'format' as 'Output format.' The description does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no guidance on path format, relative vs absolute, or when to choose markdown vs json). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') with clear resource scope ('project configuration files') and lists exact file types (next.config, middleware/proxy, .env, vercel.json). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'cross-file security issues' and 'gaps that single-file scanning misses,' clearly differentiating from scan_file/scan_directory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool by contrasting it with single-file scanning approaches. It lists specific detection scenarios (missing security headers, unprotected routes, exposed secrets, middleware/route mismatches) that indicate appropriate use cases. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like scan_file or audit_mcp_config that should be used instead for single-file analysis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output (a security report with a score) but omits critical safety information—such as whether the operation is read-only, if it stores results persistently, or rate limiting.
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 consists of exactly two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action and deliverable, while the second provides usage context. 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by describing the expected deliverable (report with security score), though it could clarify the format parameter's implications.
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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'multiple files' which aligns with the files parameter, but adds no additional semantic detail, syntax constraints, or validation rules beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses specific verbs ('Scan', 'generate') and resources ('multiple files', 'project-wide security report'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like scan_file or check_code by emphasizing the multi-file, project-wide scope and the generation of a security score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence ('Use this for comprehensive security audits') provides clear contextual guidance on when to invoke the tool. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., 'use scan_file for single files') or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses report content (exploit scenarios, audit evidence) and grouping behavior, but fails to explicitly state safety properties (read-only vs. destructive) or permission requirements critical for a security scanning tool.
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?
Four sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with core action (generate report), followed by mechanics (scans directory), output details (exploit scenarios), and usage hint (executive mode). Every sentence 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?
Strong coverage of report content given lack of output schema. Mentions grouping logic and evidence types. Minor gap: does not explicitly confirm read-only nature or describe error conditions (e.g., invalid path), though 'scan' implies read-only behavior.
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%, establishing baseline 3. Description reinforces the 'mode' parameter's purpose and implies 'path' is a directory, but adds no syntax, format examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Opens with specific verb+resource ('Generate a compliance-focused security report') and explicitly lists supported frameworks (SOC2, PCI-DSS, HIPAA, GDPR, ISO27001). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like scan_directory or audit_config by emphasizing compliance control mapping and audit evidence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for use (compliance audits) and includes specific guidance for the mode parameter ('Use mode=executive for a C-level summary'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses the return structure (before/after code, severity, line numbers) and crucially clarifies that the AI (not the tool itself) applies the patches, implying non-destructive read-only behavior. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, or explicit confirmation that source files are not modified.
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?
Three sentences that are all front-loaded and high-value. The first states the core operation, the second clarifies the agent's role in applying fixes, and the third details the return structure. No redundant words or repetition of schema details.
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?
Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the return structure (severity, line numbers, before/after code). It addresses the tool's place in the workflow (generating patches for AI application). Minor gap: does not explicitly mention that only 'code' and 'language' are required inputs, though this is clear from the schema.
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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'structured fix data' which loosely aligns with the 'format' parameter options, but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema for parameters like 'framework' (e.g., explaining that it tailors security rules to specific frameworks) or elaborating on the 'code' input requirements.
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 uses specific verbs ('analyze', 'return fix suggestions') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like check_code or analyze_dataflow by emphasizing 'concrete patches' and automatic fix capabilities. It specifies the resource (code) and the unique value proposition (patches for AI application).
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 when to use the tool (when you want 'fix suggestions' and 'concrete patches' that the AI can apply automatically), but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar siblings like check_code or analyze_dataflow. No 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output format (trust state, verdict, confidence) and configuration support (.guardviberc allowlists). However, it lacks explicit statements about whether the tool is read-only/destructive, requires elevated privileges for host scope, or performance characteristics—important gaps for a security audit tool that inspects system-wide configurations.
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?
Three dense sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 defines scope and attack vectors, sentence 2 covers output and configuration, sentence 3 provides parameter guidance. Information is front-loaded with the comprehensive audit declaration, and every clause earns its place by conveying specific technical details (CVE numbers, file types, output formats).
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?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple CVE checks, three scope levels) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers output semantics (trust state, verdict, confidence) and distinguishes scope levels. It loses one point for not addressing privilege requirements (likely needed for host scope) or explicitly confirming the read-only nature of the audit, which would be critical safety information given the sensitive domains accessed.
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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds operational guidance for the scope parameter ('Use scope=project...'), but this largely restates information already present in the schema's detailed enum descriptions (which already specify file patterns like .claude.json and shell profiles). No additional syntax, examples, or validation rules are provided beyond the schema.
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 opens with 'Comprehensive AI host security audit' and uses specific verbs (scans, reports) with detailed resources (MCP configurations, hooks, environment variables). It distinguishes from siblings like audit_mcp_config and scan_host_config by citing specific CVEs (CVE-2025-59536, CVE-2026-21852) and attack vectors (supply chain, result injection) that imply deeper inspection than generic scanning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on parameter selection: 'Use scope=project (default) for project-only scan, scope=host to include shell profiles and global configs.' This helps the agent choose appropriate scope levels. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools (e.g., when to use this versus scan_host_config or audit_mcp_config), though the specific CVE focus implies unique coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses analytical behaviors: mapping sensitive areas, identifying high-risk workflows, and recommending guard modes. However, it omits operational traits like whether it performs read-only analysis or requires specific permissions, and doesn't mention performance characteristics for large repositories.
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?
Single dense sentence with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with primary verb 'Analyze', followed by parallel clauses detailing specific analytical outputs. Every phrase contributes distinct information about capabilities (mapping, identifying, recommending, listing).
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating four specific output categories (mapped sensitive areas, risk workflows, guard recommendations, priority fixes). This provides sufficient expectation-setting for an analysis tool, though it doesn't describe the data structure or nesting of these outputs.
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% (both 'path' and 'format' well-documented in schema), establishing baseline 3. The description adds no parameter-specific context (e.g., path must be absolute vs relative, format affects which fields are populated), but this is acceptable given comprehensive schema documentation.
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?
Uses specific action verbs (Analyze, Maps, identifies, recommends, lists) and clearly targets the 'repository' resource. The phrase 'overall security posture' effectively distinguishes this from siblings like scan_file or check_dependencies which target specific aspects. The enumerated outputs (auth, payments, PII, guard mode) provide concrete scope definition.
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?
Implies usage through 'overall' scope suggesting comprehensive analysis versus targeted scans, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., repository must be cloned locally) or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively details the detection logic by enumerating specific security downgrade patterns it identifies (debug mode, cookie flags, hardcoded secrets). However, it omits whether the tool is read-only (implied by 'scan' but not stated) and what the return structure looks like given the lack of output schema.
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?
Every sentence earns its place: the first clause establishes the operation, while the list efficiently communicates scope without verbosity. The front-loaded structure puts the comparative action first, and the description avoids redundant filler despite covering eight distinct security check types.
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?
Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's detection scope through the enumerated security downgrade types and implies structured output via the 'format' parameter. Minor gap: it doesn't characterize the return value structure (e.g., list of findings vs. pass/fail) or behavior when no downgrades are detected.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description implicitly maps to the 'before' and 'after' parameters through the comparison concept, but adds no syntax guidance, format examples, or semantic constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
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 core action ('Compare before/after versions') and resource ('config file'), while the colon-delimited list of specific security downgrade patterns (CORS relaxation, CSP weakening, HSTS removal, etc.) clearly distinguishes this from siblings like audit_config or scan_file that don't perform diff-based analysis.
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?
While the specific security downgrade examples provide strong implied context about when to use this tool (when reviewing config changes for security regressions), there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar siblings like scan_changed_files or audit_config, nor any prerequisites or exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clarifies that the tool 'automatically reads staged files' without requiring input, but omits whether it performs mutations, what vulnerability classes it detects, or output behavior (exit codes, stdout vs stderr). 'Scan' implies read-only, but safety isn't explicitly confirmed.
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?
Three sentences, zero waste. Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, usage guidance in sentence two, and input requirements in sentence three. No redundant phrases or filler content.
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?
Given the low complexity (single optional parameter, no nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers invocation context. However, it could improve by briefly characterizing the output (findings list vs. pass/fail) or behavior when no files are staged, since no output schema exists to document return values.
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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the optional nature of inputs ('No input needed'), which aligns with the schema showing zero required parameters, but adds no semantic detail about the format parameter's use cases beyond what the schema enum descriptions already provide.
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 specific action (scan), target resource (git-staged files), and purpose (security vulnerabilities). The phrase 'git-staged' effectively distinguishes this from siblings like scan_file, scan_directory, and scan_changed_files by specifying the exact git state being analyzed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear temporal guidance ('before every commit') and workflow context ('catch issues early'). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from scan_changed_files or scan_file for scenarios involving unstaged changes, and doesn't mention prerequisites like being in a git repository.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical behavioral trait: 'Data is stored locally in .guardvibe/stats.json' (data source and persistence). However, lacks disclosure on error handling (what if file missing?), side effects, or permissions needed to read the file.
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, zero waste. First sentence defines functionality; second provides usage context and implementation detail. Appropriately front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Given 100% schema coverage and zero required parameters, description adequately covers the tool's purpose and data source. Missing output format details (implied by 'Show' but not explicit) and error case handling given no output schema exists.
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 schema fully documents all three parameters. Description adds contextual meaning by linking 'this project' to path and 'over time' to period, but does not add syntax, format details, or examples beyond schema.
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?
Specific verb (Show) + resources (cumulative security statistics, grade trend, vulnerability fix progress). Distinguishes from scanning/analysis siblings by emphasizing historical aggregation ('cumulative', 'over time') vs point-in-time operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'to demonstrate the value of GuardVibe security scanning over time.' Provides clear value proposition. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives from the extensive sibling list (e.g., compliance_report, repo_security_posture).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains output formats and gating but is ambiguous about whether it actually posts to GitHub APIs or merely formats output, and fails to clarify exit code behavior implied by 'block PRs' functionality.
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?
Three tightly constructed sentences (39 words) with zero waste: sentence 1 establishes purpose, sentence 2 covers scope and output targets, sentence 3 covers control mechanisms. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Adequate for input parameters given 100% schema coverage, but lacks necessary compensation for missing annotations and output schema—specifically omitting whether the tool returns formatted strings, posts side effects to GitHub, or sets exit codes for CI integration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), the description adds semantic value by mapping parameters to functional roles: linking 'diff-only mode' to the diff_only parameter, 'severity gating' to fail_on, and output destinations to the format parameter.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Review a pull request for security issues') and distinguishes from generic scanning siblings (like scan_file, scan_directory) by emphasizing PR-specific outputs (GitHub Check Runs, PR comments) and severity gating to block PRs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies clear context through mentions of 'GitHub Check Runs' and 'block PRs' suggesting CI/CD PR workflows, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus similar siblings like scan_changed_files or scan_staged.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the git diff behavior and notes that findings are returned 'only for modified/added files' (excluding deletions). However, it fails to disclose what type of scan is performed (security? linting?), which is critical context given the security-focused sibling tools (scan_secrets, scan_dependencies).
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?
Three sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core constraint ('Scan only files that have changed'), followed by use cases, then return behavior. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the 3-parameter schema with 100% coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the git mechanics and use cases. However, it has a clear gap: it doesn't specify the scan domain (security vulnerabilities, secrets, general linting), which is necessary for an agent to know if this tool fits their needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by elaborating on the 'base' parameter with concrete git ref examples: '(branch, commit, or HEAD~N)'. This clarifies the expected input format beyond the schema's generic 'Git ref' description.
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 defines the tool's specific scope: scanning files changed since a git ref (branch, commit, or HEAD~N). The phrase 'Scan only files that have changed' effectively distinguishes it from siblings like scan_directory (full scan) and scan_file (single file) by emphasizing the git-diff-based filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases: 'Ideal for PR checks, pre-push hooks, and incremental CI.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g., 'use scan_directory for full repository scans') or stating when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses specific security checks (CVE-2025-59536, shell injection, overly permissive access) and target file patterns. However, lacks explicit read-only safety declaration, output structure details, or error behavior since no output schema exists.
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 with zero waste. First sentence front-loads action, target, and threat model. Second sentence provides usage timing. 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?
Strong threat context (specific CVE, attack patterns) compensates partially for lack of annotations. Would benefit from output description given no output schema exists, but parameter coverage is complete and purpose is unambiguous for a security scanning tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds valuable context by enumerating specific config file paths (.claude/settings.json, etc.), clarifying what the 'path' parameter should contain and what subpaths the tool searches within the project root.
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?
Specific verb 'Scan' with explicit resource 'MCP configuration files' and concrete file paths (.claude/settings.json, .cursor/mcp.json, .vscode/mcp.json). Distinguishes from sibling 'audit_config' by specifying MCP-specific scope and threats (CVE-2025-59536, malicious hooks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('verify MCP configurations are safe before use'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives (e.g., vs 'audit_config'), but MCP-specific focus provides implicit differentiation from general security siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses the output structure (allow/ask/deny verdicts, blast radius, safer alternatives) and detection capabilities. It implies the tool doesn't execute the command (analyze before execution), though an explicit safety guarantee would strengthen this further.
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 optimally concise with two information-dense sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and return value, while the second efficiently enumerates detection categories without redundancy.
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?
Given the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the return verdict structure and specific risk categories detected. It covers the essential behavioral contract for a 4-parameter analysis tool, though explicit mention of read-only safety would achieve full completeness.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'context-aware risk assessment' which loosely maps to the cwd and branch parameters, but doesn't explicitly elaborate on parameter interactions, format expectations, or provide examples beyond the schema definitions.
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 specific action (analyze), target resource (shell command), and timing (before execution). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like check_code or scan_secrets by focusing on runtime command analysis rather than static code or dependency analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'before execution' provides clear temporal context for when to invoke the tool. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for other use cases, the distinction from sibling tools is implicit through the specific focus on shell command security validation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully adds critical behavioral traits: output style ('Returns only findings (no boilerplate)'), performance characteristics ('Lightweight and fast'), and auto-detection capability ('detects language'). Missing only error handling or permission requirements.
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?
Three sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core purpose ('Scan a single file...'), followed by output characteristics, and closing with performance/implementation details. Every clause 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?
Given no output schema exists, the description adequately covers return values ('returns findings in JSON', 'no boilerplate'). For a 2-parameter tool with simple schema, it covers the essential operational context including performance expectations and ideal timing (post-edit).
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%, establishing baseline 3. The description aligns with schema (mentioning JSON output and disk reading) but does not add semantic depth, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already documents for file_path and format parameters.
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?
Clear specific verb ('Scan') with exact resource scope ('single file from disk') and objective ('security vulnerabilities'). Effectively distinguishes from siblings like scan_directory or scan_changed_files by emphasizing 'single file' and 'real-time use' versus batch/directory operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear contextual guidance: 'Designed for real-time use: call this after editing a file to catch security issues immediately.' Implicitly differentiates from directory-level siblings through the 'single file' and 'real-time' framing, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like scan_directory for bulk operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the classification system ('active' vs. 'removed') and actionable implications ('needs rotation'). It could improve by mentioning performance characteristics or read-only nature, but the finding taxonomy is well-documented.
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?
Three sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 states the core action, sentence 2 defines the unique value proposition (historical detection), sentence 3 explains the output classification system. Information is front-loaded and every clause 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?
Without an output schema, the description compensates by detailing the finding classification system ('active'/'removed') and remediation implications. For a 3-parameter security tool with no annotations, this covers the essential behavioral contract, though it could hint at the return structure format.
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% (all 3 parameters documented), establishing a baseline of 3. The description provides no additional parameter context, but given the schema fully defines 'path', 'max_commits', and 'format', no supplementation is necessary.
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 uses specific verbs ('scan', 'finds', 'marks') and clearly targets 'git history' as the resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'scan_secrets' by emphasizing historical commits and secrets 'later removed'—highlighting the unique temporal scope that current-state scanners miss.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context about when findings appear (historical vs. current) and implies the tool's purpose through phrases like 'committed in the past'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this (e.g., for scanning current working directory) or prerequisites (git repository required), stopping short of naming alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the analysis methodology: resolving imports/exports, building module graphs, and tracking tainted data to specific dangerous sinks (SQL, eval, redirect, file ops). Missing safety disclosures (read-only status, performance characteristics) prevent a 5.
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?
Three sentences, zero waste. First sentence establishes purpose and scope, second details technical implementation (methodology), third provides operational guidance. Well-structured with high information density and no redundant phrasing.
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?
For a complex static analysis tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the analysis mechanism and vulnerability targets. Could be improved by describing the expected return structure (markdown/JSON contents) since no output schema exists to document this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds crucial semantic context for the 'files' parameter: 'Pass all related files for best results' clarifies that the array should include interconnected modules rather than arbitrary isolated files. No additional context provided for 'format' parameter.
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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Track user input flowing across module boundaries') and explicitly defines the scope ('detects injection vulnerabilities that span multiple files'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'analyze_dataflow' by emphasizing cross-module resolution and multi-file taint tracking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear contextual guidance through 'Pass all related files for best results,' implying when to use this tool (multi-file scenarios). However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives like 'analyze_dataflow' or stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g., single-file analysis).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses the specific vulnerability checks performed (CVE-2026-21852, environment variable sniffing) and scope behavior. It could improve by explicitly stating this is a read-only operation or describing output characteristics, though 'scan' implies non-destructive behavior.
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 dense sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the security purpose and specific CVEs. The second sentence immediately guides usage through the scope parameter. Every clause earns its place by either defining the threat model or guiding invocation.
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?
Given the rich input schema (100% coverage, well-documented enums) and absence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on threat model specifics rather than parameter mechanics. It could enhance completeness by hinting at the output structure or report format, but adequately covers the tool's security domain context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by mapping the scope parameter to specific security artifacts ('shell profiles', 'global AI configs') that align with the threat model described in the first sentence, reinforcing the security context beyond the schema's functional descriptions.
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 'Scan[s] host environment for AI security issues' and enumerates specific threats (API base URL hijacking CVE-2026-21852, credential exposure, .env leaks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_secrets or scan_directory by focusing on host-level AI configuration security rather than generic code scanning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on the scope parameter ('Checks .env files at project scope; add scope=host to also check shell profiles'), effectively explaining when to use each scan depth. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools (e.g., when to choose this over scan_secrets or audit_config).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![guardvibe MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/goklab/guardvibe/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/goklab/guardvibe)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![guardvibe MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/goklab/guardvibe/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/goklab/guardvibe)

How to claim the server?

If you are the author of the server, you simply need to authenticate using GitHub.

However, if the MCP server belongs to an organization, you need to first add glama.json to the root of your repository.

{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

Then, authenticate using GitHub.

Browse examples.

How to make a release?

A "release" on Glama is not the same as a GitHub release. To create a Glama release:

Claim the server if you haven't already.
Go to the Dockerfile admin page, configure the build spec, and click Deploy.
Once the build test succeeds, click Make Release, enter a version, and publish.

This process allows Glama to run security checks on your server and enables users to deploy it.

How to add a LICENSE?

Please follow the instructions in the GitHub documentation.

Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

If the license does not appear on the server after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Latest Blog Posts

Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
By punkpeye on April 3, 2026.
mcp
The Hackers Who Tracked My Sleep Cycle
By punkpeye on March 26, 2026.
security
Open Source Has a Bot Problem
By punkpeye on March 19, 2026.
open source

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/goklab/guardvibe'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server