Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
guardvibe

guardvibe

by goklab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

scan_config_change

Compare before/after config file versions to detect security downgrades like CORS relaxation, CSP weakening, or HSTS removal.

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.

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": {
      "before": "<before>",
      "after": "<after>"
    },
    "name": "scan_config_change"
  }
}

Input 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. 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

A3.5/5.0
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. It usefully discloses the detection scope and that the operation is a comparison, but it omits whether the tool is read-only, whether it writes anything, whether it requires repository context, and what kind of response it produces.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with a compact, readable list of detection categories. Every element contributes to the tool's purpose, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and detection surface, and the schema fully documents the four parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about usage boundaries, read-only behavior, and/or expected result shape to be fully complete for an agent.

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 before, after, format, and file_path are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Compare before/after versions of a config file to detect security downgrades.' It also enumerates concrete detection categories (CORS relaxation, CSP weakening, HSTS removal, etc.), making the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as audit_config or scan_changed_files.

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?

The before/after comparison framing implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent can infer that this tool applies to versioned config comparisons, but must still guess against siblings like audit_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