Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
guardvibe

guardvibe

by goklab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

security_stats

Monitor cumulative security statistics, grade trends, and vulnerability fix progress to show how code security improves over time.

Instructions

Show cumulative security statistics, grade trend, and vulnerability fix progress for this project. Use this to demonstrate the value of GuardVibe security scanning over time. Data is stored locally in .guardvibe/stats.json.

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": "security_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoProject root path.
formatNoOutput formatmarkdown
periodNoTime period for statsmonth

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 burden. It usefully discloses the data source ('stored locally in .guardvibe/stats.json'), which implies a read of prior scan history rather than a live scan, but it never states that the call is read-only, what happens when no stats file exists yet, or whether prior scans are a prerequisite.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the output content, then the use case, then the storage detail. The middle sentence is slightly promotional but still carries usage signal, so there is little waste.

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 name the three categories of returned data and the storage location, which is close to sufficient for a read-only reporting tool. The main remaining gap is the empty-state / prerequisite condition (stats only exist after prior scans).

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% and both enums (format, period) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about how 'period' interacts with cumulative totals or what 'path' means relative to the stats file location.

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 ('Show') plus three concrete resources: cumulative security statistics, grade trend, and vulnerability fix progress, scoped to 'this project'. That is enough to distinguish it from action-oriented siblings like full_audit or fix_code, though it does not explicitly contrast with reporting siblings such as compliance_report or repo_security_posture.

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?

'Use this to demonstrate the value of GuardVibe security scanning over time' gives a use case, but it is framed as a motivation rather than a decision rule. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many reporting/audit siblings, so the agent must infer whether this or compliance_report/repo_security_posture fits.

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