Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
guardvibe

guardvibe

by goklab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

check_code

Analyze inline code snippets for security vulnerabilities such as OWASP Top 10, XSS, and SQL injection before deployment. Pass code and language to get actionable findings.

Instructions

Analyze inline code for security vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10, XSS, SQL injection, insecure patterns). Pass code as a string parameter. For scanning files on disk, use scan_file instead. Example: check_code({code: 'app.get(...)', language: 'javascript'})

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": "check_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe code snippet to analyze
formatNoOutput format: markdown (human) or json (machine-readable for agents)markdown
languageYesProgramming language of the code
frameworkNoFramework context (e.g. express, nextjs, fastapi, react, django)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.66.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
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 implies a non-executing static analysis of a string and shows the caller controls output format via the example/schema, but it says nothing about how findings are produced (heuristics vs. rules), whether anything leaves the machine, or what the report contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the alternative, then an example. The trailing example is slightly redundant given how complete the schema is, but it costs little and clarifies the call shape.

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?

All four parameters are documented and the routing to scan_file is clear, but with no output schema and no annotations the description never says what a result looks like (findings list, severities, CWEs, pass/fail). For a scanning tool whose value is its report, that is a real gap an agent must guess at.

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 description coverage is 100% (code, language enum, framework, format all documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds a small but real increment by tying 'pass code as a string' and the example call shape to the code/language pair, reinforcing that a snippet, not a path, is expected.

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 inline code') plus concrete scope (OWASP Top 10, XSS, SQL injection, insecure patterns). It explicitly contrasts itself with scan_file, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit input mode ('Pass code as a string parameter') and names the alternative with its selecting condition ('For scanning files on disk, use scan_file instead'). Nothing about when to pick this vs. a file-based scan is left to inference.

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