Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
guardvibe

guardvibe

by goklab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

generate_policy

Scan your project to auto-detect frameworks and generate tailored security policies, including CSP headers, CORS, RLS, and rate limiting rules.

Instructions

Auto-detect project stack (Next.js, Supabase, Stripe, Clerk, Prisma, etc.) and generate tailored security policies. Outputs ready-to-use CSP headers, CORS configuration, Supabase RLS policies, rate limiting rules, and security headers based on detected frameworks.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "generate_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesProject root directory to scan
formatNoOutput formatmarkdown

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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key behavior that detection is based on scanning the project stack and that outputs are framework-tailored, which is valuable beyond structured fields. But it leaves critical ambiguity unresolved: whether policies are written to disk or merely returned, whether existing config files are overwritten, and what happens when detection fails.

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, front-loaded with the detection mechanism followed by the concrete deliverables. The enumeration of output types is dense but every item carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail. It does well on what artifacts are produced, but omits side-effect semantics (write vs. return), error behavior on unrecognized stacks, and scope of the directory scan required for a two-parameter generation 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 coverage is 100% with only two parameters, both documented in the schema (path as project root, format enum with default). The description adds no syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('generate tailored security policies') plus the mechanism (auto-detect stack) and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced: CSP headers, CORS, RLS policies, rate limiting, security headers. An agent knows exactly what it gets; however, it never contrasts itself with close siblings like policy_check or remediation_plan.

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 statement of when to use this versus policy_check (which presumably validates existing policies) or full_audit/remediation_plan. The only usage signal is implicit: you pass a project root and get policies, so the reader must infer the scenario themselves.

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