Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
guardvibe

guardvibe

by goklab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

scan_secrets_history

Scan Git history for leaked secrets, including removed commits, and flag each finding as active or removed so you know what needs rotation.

Instructions

Scan git history for leaked secrets. Finds secrets that were committed in the past — even if they were later removed. Marks each finding as 'active' (still in code) or 'removed' (in git history only, needs rotation).

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": "scan_secrets_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesRepository root path
formatNoOutput formatmarkdown
max_commitsNoMaximum number of commits to scan

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.66.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: findings are labeled 'active' vs 'removed' and 'removed' implies rotation is needed. That is genuinely useful output semantics. It omits what an agent would want to know for an unannotated tool — whether it's read-only (implied but unstated), cost/runtime on large repos, and that the default max_commits=100 truncates the scan.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the differentiating detail and the finding classification. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-only, three-parameter tool with a fully documented schema: the agent knows what it does and what findings look like. It stops short of routing the agent among the many sibling scan tools and doesn't note the commit-cap limitation, so it's viable but not complete for a crowded tool family.

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 all three parameters documented, including the enum for format and the default of 100 commits, so the schema does the work. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as what the path must point to or the consequences of raising max_commits. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Scan git history for leaked secrets") with an explicit scope statement that it finds secrets "committed in the past — even if they were later removed." That scope cleanly separates it from the sibling scan_secrets (working-tree scan) without needing to name it.

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?

Usage is strongly implied by "in the past — even if they were later removed," so an agent can infer this is the history counterpart to a current-code scan. But no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use scan_secrets for the working tree, or that the default 100-commit cap limits coverage).

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