Skip to main content
Glama
isagasi

CodeGuard MCP Server

by isagasi

validate_code_security

Validate code snippets against security rules to identify vulnerabilities and provide remediation instructions for secure coding practices.

Instructions

Validate code snippet against security rules and return applicable instructions

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesCode snippet to validate
languageYesProgramming language of the code

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function validateCodeSecurity that executes the tool logic. It validates code and language parameters, retrieves applicable security instructions using matchInstructions, and formats them into a response with applicable security rules and recommendations.
    function validateCodeSecurity(
      args: Record<string, unknown>,
      instructions: Instruction[]
    ) {
      const code = args.code as string;
      const language = args.language as string;
      
      if (!code || !language) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: 'Error: Both code and language are required',
            },
          ],
          isError: true,
        };
      }
      
      // Get applicable instructions
      const result = matchInstructions({ language }, instructions);
      
      // Build response with instructions and validation context
      const response = [
        `# Security Validation for ${language.toUpperCase()} Code`,
        '',
        `Analyzing the provided code against ${result.instructions.length} security rules...`,
        '',
        '## Applicable Security Rules:',
        '',
      ];
      
      result.instructions.forEach(i => {
        response.push(`### ${i.frontmatter.description}`);
        response.push('');
        response.push(i.content);
        response.push('');
        response.push('---');
        response.push('');
      });
      
      response.push('## Recommendation:');
      response.push('Review your code against the above security rules and ensure compliance.');
      
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: response.join('\n'),
          },
        ],
        isError: false,
      };
    }
  • Tool registration definition in the listTools() function, specifying the tool name 'validate_code_security', description, and input schema with required 'code' and 'language' parameters.
    {
      name: 'validate_code_security',
      description: 'Validate code snippet against security rules and return applicable instructions',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          code: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Code snippet to validate',
          },
          language: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Programming language of the code',
          },
        },
        required: ['code', 'language'],
      },
    },
  • Tool dispatch logic in callTool() that routes calls to the validate_code_security tool to the validateCodeSecurity handler function.
    if (name === 'validate_code_security') {
      return validateCodeSecurity(args, instructions);
    }
  • Helper function matchInstructions that scores and filters security instruction rules based on language, context, filepath, and criticality. Used by validateCodeSecurity to retrieve applicable security rules.
    export function matchInstructions(
      context: MatchContext,
      allInstructions: Instruction[]
    ): MatchResult {
      const scoredInstructions: ScoredInstruction[] = [];
      const matchedBy: MatchResult['metadata']['matchedBy'] = {};
      
      // Score all instructions
      for (const instruction of allInstructions) {
        const scored = scoreInstruction(instruction, context);
        if (scored.score > 0) {
          scoredInstructions.push(scored);
        }
      }
      
      // Sort by priority (high to low), then by score
      scoredInstructions.sort((a, b) => {
        if (a.priority !== b.priority) {
          return b.priority - a.priority;
        }
        return b.score - a.score;
      });
      
      // Count matches by type
      matchedBy.critical = scoredInstructions.filter(s => s.priority === Priority.CRITICAL).length;
      matchedBy.language = scoredInstructions.filter(s => s.matchReasons.includes('language')).length;
      matchedBy.filepath = scoredInstructions.filter(s => s.matchReasons.includes('filepath')).length;
      matchedBy.context = scoredInstructions.filter(s => s.matchReasons.includes('context')).length;
      
      // Priority breakdown
      const priorityBreakdown = {
        critical: scoredInstructions.filter(s => s.priority === Priority.CRITICAL).length,
        high: scoredInstructions.filter(s => s.priority === Priority.HIGH).length,
        medium: scoredInstructions.filter(s => s.priority === Priority.MEDIUM).length,
        low: scoredInstructions.filter(s => s.priority === Priority.LOW).length,
      };
      
      // Limit to top 15 rules to keep response size manageable
      const topInstructions = scoredInstructions.slice(0, 15);
      
      return {
        instructions: topInstructions.map(s => s.instruction),
        metadata: {
          totalMatched: scoredInstructions.length,
          matchedBy,
          priorityBreakdown,
        },
      };
    }
  • Input schema definition for the validate_code_security tool, specifying that it requires 'code' (string) and 'language' (string) as mandatory parameters.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        code: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Code snippet to validate',
        },
        language: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Programming language of the code',
        },
      },
      required: ['code', 'language'],
    },
Behavior2/5

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 mentions validation and returning instructions, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only analysis, what types of security rules are applied, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the instructions take. For a security validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and return value with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of security validation, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'security rules' entail, the nature of 'applicable instructions', error handling, or performance characteristics. For a tool with significant behavioral implications, more context is needed.

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%, with both parameters ('code' and 'language') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid languages or code formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('code snippet against security rules'), and mentions the return value ('applicable instructions'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_security_instructions' by focusing on validation rather than retrieval, though the distinction could be more explicit.

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 description implies usage context (when code needs security validation) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_security_instructions'. No guidance on prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions is provided, leaving usage decisions somewhat ambiguous.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/isagasi/codeguard-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server