Skip to main content
Glama
goklab

guardvibe

by goklab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

scan_config_change

Compare two config file versions to detect security downgrades, including CORS relaxation, CSP weakening, HSTS removal, debug mode, cookie flag changes, TLS disabling, new hardcoded secrets, and removed security headers.

Instructions

Compare before/after versions of a config file to detect security downgrades: CORS relaxation, CSP weakening, HSTS removal, debug mode, cookie flag changes, TLS disabling, new hardcoded secrets, removed security headers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterYesNew config file content
beforeYesPrevious config file content
formatNoOutput formatjson
file_pathNoConfig file path for contextconfig

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.35.1
  2. Removedv3.30.0
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It discloses detection types but omits side effects, permissions, or output behavior. Safe read operation is inferred, not stated.

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?

Single sentence but packs many specific checks. No waste, though a bit lengthy. Front-loads verb and purpose.

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?

No output schema, but description covers the tool's core function and detectable downgrades. Lacks detail on output structure (e.g., format options described in schema). Adequate for a diff 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%, so baseline 3. Description adds no extra parameter details beyond schema; parameters are self-explanatory from names and 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?

Description clearly states it compares before/after config files to detect security downgrades, listing specific checks like CORS, CSP, HSTS. Distinct from siblings like scan_file or scan_directory.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like scan_file or scan_directory. Implies config diff use case but doesn't exclude other scanning needs.

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