Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
guardvibe

guardvibe

by goklab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

analyze_dataflow

Traces user input through JavaScript/TypeScript code to dangerous sinks such as SQL queries, eval, file operations, and redirects, detecting injection vulnerabilities that regex rules miss.

Instructions

Track user input (request body, URL params, form data) flowing into dangerous sinks (SQL queries, eval, file operations, redirects). Detects injection vulnerabilities that regex rules miss by following variable assignments through code.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>",
      "language": "<language>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_dataflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesCode to analyze for tainted data flows
formatNoOutput formatmarkdown
languageYesLanguage (JS/TS only)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.66.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Addedv3.35.1
  3. Removedv3.30.0
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the analysis mechanism (following variable assignments rather than matching patterns), which explains result characteristics like fewer false positives on obfuscated flows. It says nothing about depth limits, what counts as a reported flow, or that analysis is static/local within a single 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core mechanism and immediately followed by the differentiator. No filler.

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 fairly simple two-required-parameter tool with full schema coverage, but it omits scope (single file vs project) and the boundary with analyze_cross_file_dataflow, which matters for tool selection in a 38-tool server.

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% and both enums are documented, so the standard is the baseline. The description adds conceptual value by enumerating source and sink categories that shape findings, but adds no detail about the code/format/language parameters themselves.

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 a specific analysis: tracking user-controlled inputs (request body, URL params, form data) into dangerous sinks (SQL, eval, file ops, redirects). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from regex-based checks. However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling analyze_cross_file_dataflow, which sounds like the closest alternative.

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?

Usage is implied ('detects injection vulnerabilities that regex rules miss'), which hints that an agent should prefer this over check_code-style regex scanning. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of JS/TS-only scope in the description, and no routing to analyze_cross_file_dataflow.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools