Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Latent Defense MCP Server

Latent Defense MCP Server

Official
by latent-defense
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

run_scan_schedule

Trigger a scheduled scan on demand to discover infrastructure attack paths in your GitHub repositories.

Instructions

Manually trigger a scan schedule to run now.

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": {
      "schedule_id": "<schedule_id>"
    },
    "name": "run_scan_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schedule_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overriding a currently running scan), required permissions, or any limits on how often it can be triggered. This is inadequate for a mutation-like operation.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence, but it sacrifices informational value for brevity. While concise, it could include more context without becoming verbose, such as mentioning the need to obtain the schedule ID or what happens after triggering.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core action but misses context like how the schedule ID relates to other tools (e.g., list_scan_schedules) or what the output contains. It is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about the sole parameter 'schedule_id'. It does not explain what constitutes a valid ID, how to obtain it, or what format it should be in. The schema only provides a title, which is insufficient.

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 clearly states the action ('Manually trigger') and the resource ('a scan schedule'), directly aligning with the tool name. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'trigger_scan' by specifying it operates on schedules rather than generic scans.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'trigger_scan', 'list_scan_schedules'). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring the schedule ID from another tool, nor any exclusions for when not to use it.

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