Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
guardvibe

guardvibe

by goklab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

policy_check

Validates a project against compliance policies in .guardviberc, returning pass/fail findings per control for CI/CD security gates and pre-release checks.

Instructions

Check project against compliance policies defined in .guardviberc. Use this in CI/CD pipelines to enforce security gates, or before releases to verify compliance requirements are met. Validates custom framework requirements, severity thresholds, required controls, and risk exceptions. Returns pass/fail status with detailed findings per control.

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": "policy_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesProject root directory
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. Addedv3.0.45
  5. Removedv3.0.44
  6. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 burden. It implicitly signals a read-only validation and describes output shape (pass/fail plus per-control findings), but omits CI-critical behavior such as what happens when .guardviberc is absent or malformed, and whether a failing check surfaces a non-zero exit code.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then usage, validation scope, and return shape — no filler. The middle enumeration of validated rule types is slightly list-like but each item is informative.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work of stating the return value (pass/fail with detailed findings per control) and the config source. Remaining gaps — missing-config handling and CI exit-code behavior — are minor but real for a gate used in pipelines.

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 both `path` and `format` are already documented with defaults and an enum. The description only indirectly touches these (the .guardviberc reference relates to `path`) and adds no new semantics, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource — check a project against compliance policies defined in .guardviberc — and enumerates what is validated (custom frameworks, severity thresholds, required controls, risk exceptions). That is far more specific than the sibling compliance_report or full_audit, though it never names those siblings to draw the boundary explicitly.

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?

Gives two concrete invocation contexts: CI/CD security gates and pre-release compliance verification. This is clear usage guidance, but there are no exclusions or explicit pointers to alternatives (e.g., when to prefer compliance_report or full_audit instead).

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