Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
guardvibe

guardvibe

by goklab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

guardvibe_doctor

Check AI host security by scanning MCP configurations, hooks, base URL hijacking, and environment variable exposure across project or host scope.

Instructions

Check AI host security: MCP configurations, hooks, base URL hijacking, environment variable exposure. NOT the same as audit_config which checks application config files (next.config, .env, headers). Use scope=project (default) for project-only, scope=host to include shell profiles and global AI configs. Example: guardvibe_doctor({scope: 'project'})

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": "guardvibe_doctor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoProject root directory.
scopeNoScan scope: project (default, .claude.json + .cursor/ + .vscode/ + .env), host (+ shell profiles + global MCP configs), full (+ home dir configs)project
formatNoOutput format: markdown (human) or json (machine-readable)markdown

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

A3.8/5.0
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 behavioral burden. “Check” implies a read-only diagnostic, and scope-specific scanning behavior is described, but the description does not explicitly confirm that no files are modified or state permission/read-access requirements for host-level scans.

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?

Front-loads the security purpose, follows with a sibling comparison, then scope guidance and a compact example. No wasted sentences.

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?

Covers purpose, sibling distinction, scope selection, and an example for a moderately complex diagnostic tool. Since there is no output schema, it could say more about what the diagnostic returns, but the core invocation guidance is complete.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description reinforces scope semantics and provides a usage example, but adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource set: checking AI host security across MCP configurations, hooks, base URL hijacking, and environment variable exposure. It clearly distinguishes itself from audit_config, but does not differentiate from closer-sounding siblings like audit_mcp_config or scan_host_config.

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 says this is NOT audit_config and gives concrete guidance on scope selection: project by default, host to include shell profiles and global AI configs. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over overlapping siblings such as audit_mcp_config or scan_host_config.

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