apsa

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

audit_scan

Scan local Android/iOS source, APK, AAB, APKS, and IPA artifacts with cached intelligence to produce candidate security findings without network or device changes.

Instructions

Inspect local source/APK/AAB/APKS/IPA using cached intelligence. APKS requires apk_set_device with sdkVersion, supportedAbis, screenDensity and supportedLocales; selected APKs are inspected individually without installation or manifest/resource merging. ipa_trust_policy supplies explicit digest-bound DER anchors for cryptographic chain checks only, without Apple signer identity, revocation or app authenticity verification. Configuration selects a relative manifest or .plist without build-system merge. dependency_module and runtime_configuration select recorded Gradle lock resolution, with optional relative dependency_evidence paths; freshness and installed-build correspondence remain unverified. specs declares project sources/sinks; findings stay candidates. No network or device mutation.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sbom`	No
`specs`	No
`target`	Yes
`device_info`	No
`configuration`	No
`source_module`	No
`apk_set_device`	No
`ipa_trust_policy`	No
`dependency_module`	No
`dependency_evidence`	No
`runtime_configuration`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv1.6.0Oct 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / apk_set_device

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Apk Set Device"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / dependency_evidence

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Dependency Evidence"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / dependency_module

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Dependency Module"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / ipa_trust_policy

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Ipa Trust Policy"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / runtime_configuration

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Runtime Configuration"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1Oct 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / configuration

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Configuration"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / source_module

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Source Module"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / specs

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Specs"
+}

First observedv1.0.3Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses real behavioral limits beyond the annotations: findings stay candidates, freshness and installed-build correspondence remain unverified, ipa_trust_policy does not verify Apple signer identity or revocation, and there is "No network or device mutation." This is strong for a non-read-only tool, though it never explains what state the readOnlyHint=false operation actually writes.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each sentence conveys parameter-scoping or verification-limit information with little filler. It is dense to the point of being hard to parse in one read, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Combined with the extensive caveat coverage the description gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly for the main artifact types, with only a few parameters left unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters, the description carries the full burden and does compensate for most of it: apk_set_device, ipa_trust_policy, configuration, dependency_module, runtime_configuration, dependency_evidence, and specs all get usage context. sbom, source_module, device_info, and target remain undocumented, so it is not a clean 5.

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 opening clause states a specific verb and resource set: "Inspect local source/APK/AAB/APKS/IPA using cached intelligence." An agent immediately knows the artifact classes covered. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like audit_start or audit_reassess, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Some conditional usage is given (APKS requires apk_set_device with sdkVersion, supportedAbis, screenDensity, supportedLocales), which is genuinely useful. But there is no guidance on when to choose audit_scan over audit_start, audit_reassess, or dependency_check; usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.