Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
guardvibe

guardvibe

by goklab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

auth_coverage

Analyze authentication coverage across Next.js App Router routes. Detects auth guards and reports protected vs unprotected routes.

Instructions

Analyze authentication coverage across Next.js App Router routes. Detects auth guards (Clerk, NextAuth, Supabase, custom) and reports protected vs unprotected routes. Pass files array with route file contents and middleware content. Example: auth_coverage({files: [{path: 'app/api/users/route.ts', content: '...'}], middleware: '...'})

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "auth_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoProject directory path. When provided, auto-discovers all route, page, layout, and middleware files — no need to pass file contents manually.
filesNoRoute and page files from app/ directory (ignored when path is provided)
formatNoOutput formatmarkdown
middlewareNoContent of middleware.ts file (ignored when path is provided)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.66.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • removedInput schema / properties / files / items / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Addedv3.35.1
  3. Removedv3.30.0
  4. Addedv3.0.42

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 does disclose what is reported (protected vs unprotected routes, which providers are detected), which is valuable given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about read-only/static-analysis nature, behavior when no input is supplied, or the fact that files/middleware are ignored when path is given.

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, front-loaded with purpose and then detection scope, with a compact example at the end that pays for itself by showing the exact input shape. Minor waste is the repetition of 'auth coverage' framing that the tool name already conveys.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by describing what the report contains. But with four params and zero required, the guidance to 'pass files array' skips the primary no-arg/`path` workflow, leaving an agent without the complete picture of how to invoke it in the simplest case.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains `path`, `files`, `format`, and `middleware` including the 'ignored when path is provided' rule. The description adds a concrete usage example for the files/middleware combination but omits `path` and `format` entirely, so it neither enhances nor fully mirrors 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?

States a specific verb and resource (analyze authentication coverage across Next.js App Router routes) and names the concrete capability: detecting Clerk/NextAuth/Supabase/custom auth guards and reporting protected vs unprotected routes. An agent can tell this apart from generic siblings like check_code or full_audit without opening the schema.

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 it (you have route files and middleware you want analyzed) but gives no explicit when-not or alternatives among the many sibling scanners. Worse, it frames input as 'Pass files array with route file contents and middleware content,' which understates the more convenient `path` auto-discovery option documented in the schema, so guidance is partially misleading rather than absent.

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