Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
secure-kb

secure-kb

by pavnxet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_checks

Search OWASP-derived security check cards by free-text query, then filter by domain, platform, or severity to find relevant checks.

Instructions

Free-text search over check cards with structured filters.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_checks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kNo
queryYes
domainNo
platformNo
severityNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether results are ranked, capped by 'k', paginated, permission-scoped, or what happens when filters conflict with the query.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity tips into under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness.

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?

For a 5-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. The agent lacks filter semantics, result-limit behavior, and any notion of what is returned.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, and the description only gestures at 'free-text' (query) and 'structured filters' without naming domain, platform, severity, or explaining 'k' (results cap?). It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (check cards) plus the two retrieval modes (free-text and structured filters). It does not name or contrast with the closest sibling, get_check, so an agent must infer the single-card vs multi-card distinction.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned. The phrase 'free-text search ... with structured filters' only loosely implies usage; nothing tells the agent to prefer this over get_check or list_tools.

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