rush

by jamesdsizemore

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

rush_secrets

Scan a codebase for exposed secrets while keeping values hidden. If Gitleaks is missing, returns a skipped status.

Instructions

Scan for secrets without exposing values; missing gitleaks returns status='skipped'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`raw`	No
`tool`	No
`engine`	No
`status`	No
`metrics`	No
`summary`	No
`findings`	No
`metadata`	No
`artifacts`	No
`duration_ms`	No
`review_kind`	No
`engine_version`	No
`review_provider`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2Sep 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / metrics / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "number"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "string"
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedv0.3.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that values are not exposed and that a missing gitleaks results in status='skipped', both of which are meaningful behavioral traits not inferable from the schema.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and safety property, then adds the edge-case behavior. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral nuance (skipped status) and the critical safety guarantee (no value exposure). However, it lacks explicit routing guidance and any parameter reasoning, so it is not fully complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It never mentions the 'path' parameter or what it should point to, leaving the agent to infer entirely from the parameter name and format.

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?

The description states a specific action and resource ('Scan for secrets') and adds a key differentiator: values are not exposed. This clearly separates it from broader siblings like rush_security or generic rush_scan.

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 purpose is clear through the word 'secrets', but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling tools. The gitleaks-missing condition describes runtime behavior rather than when to invoke this tool over alternatives.

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

Deploy Server