Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
guardvibe

guardvibe

by goklab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

verify_fix

Rescans updated code to confirm a reported vulnerability is resolved, returning fixed, still_vulnerable, or new_issues with details.

Instructions

Verify that a specific security fix was applied correctly. Re-scans the updated code and checks if the target vulnerability (by rule ID) is resolved. Returns 'fixed', 'still_vulnerable', or 'new_issues' status with details.

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": {
      "code": "<code>",
      "language": "<language>",
      "ruleId": "<ruleId>"
    },
    "name": "verify_fix"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesUpdated code after applying the fix
ruleIdYesRule ID to verify (e.g. VG402)
filePathNoFile path for context-aware analysis
languageYesProgramming language

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.66.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Addedv3.0.42

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by disclosing the three possible outcomes ('fixed', 'still_vulnerable', 'new_issues') and the fact that it re-scans rather than trusting prior results, but it never says whether the scan is read-only, what permissions or cost/latency are involved, or what 'details' contain.

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 with the purpose, mechanism, and return values front-loaded in that order. No filler, though the final sentence listing statuses could be tightened.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and outcome vocabulary but omits the sibling disambiguation (verify_remediation) and any statement about side effects or return detail structure. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 the four parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that ruleId targets the vulnerability and that code should be the post-fix version, but adds nothing about filePath or language beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') with a concrete resource ('a specific security fix') and states the mechanism (re-scan of updated code, matched by rule ID). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling verify_remediation, leaving ambiguity for an agent choosing between the two.

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 implied: call this after applying a fix to confirm the vulnerability is gone. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the overlapping sibling verify_remediation, so an agent must infer the routing decision from the name alone.

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