GitHub 저장소의 GHAS를 호출하는 MCP 서버입니다.
현재 지원되는 도구는 다음과 같습니다.
list_dependabot_alerts: 저장소에 대한 모든 dependabot 알림을 나열합니다.
list_secret_scanning_alerts: 저장소에 대한 모든 비밀 스캐닝 알림을 나열합니다.
list_code_scanning_alerts: 저장소에 대한 모든 코드 스캐닝 알림을 나열합니다.
구성된 PAT에 이 세 가지 범위(읽기 전용)를 추가하고 올바른 구성에도 적용하세요!
버튼을 사용하여 VS Code 또는 VS Code Insiders 환경에 서버를 설치하세요. 링크를 신뢰하기 전에 꼭 읽어보세요! 링크는 vscode.dev 와 insiders.vscode.dev 로 연결되어 있으며, 서버 설치 지침이 포함되어 있습니다.
VS Code를 사용하면 어떤 일이 일어나기 전에 구성을 볼 수 있습니다.
편집기에서 MCP 구성에 아래 구성을 추가하세요.
개인 액세스 토큰(다음 섹션 참조)을 저장하는 대신, 인증된 GitHub CLI를 사용할 수도 있습니다. 이 경우 GitHub CLI에서 설정한 사용자 인증 정보가 사용됩니다. GitHub CLI가 설치되어 있고 이미 인증된 경우 이 기능이 유용합니다.
인증을 위해 GitHub CLI를 사용하려면 다음 단계를 따르세요.
환경 변수에 "GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN_USE_GHCLI": "true" 추가합니다.
gh auth login 실행하여 GitHub CLI가 설치되어 있고 인증을 받았는지 확인하세요.
구성:
지엑스피1
Related MCP server: SonarQube MCP Server
VS Code에서는 다음과 같습니다.
{
"mcp": {
"inputs": [
{
"id": "github_personal_access_token",
"description": "GitHub Personal Access Token",
"type": "promptString",
"password": true
}
]
},
"servers": {
"ghas-mcp-server": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@rajbos/ghas-mcp-server"
],
"env": {
"GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN": "${input:github_personal_access_token}"
}
}
}
}
기여를 환영합니다! 새로운 도구나 개선 사항에 대한 아이디어가 있으시면 이슈를 개설하거나 풀 리퀘스트를 제출해 주세요.
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build the project
npm run build
ghas-mcp-server/
├── src/
│ ├── operations/ # MCP Tools
│ │ └── security.ts
│ └── index.ts # Server entry point
├── package.json
└── tsconfig.json이 프로젝트는 src/operations/security.ts 에 GHAS 도구와 함께 제공됩니다.
도구를 변경하세요
npm run build 실행하여 컴파일합니다.
서버는 시작 시 자동으로 도구를 로드합니다.
다음 MCP 구성으로 로컬 빌드 버전을 구성하여 로컬 빌드를 테스트할 수 있습니다.
"servers": {
"ghas-mcp-server": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"C:/Users/RobBos/Code/Repos/rajbos/ghas-mpc-server/dist/index.js"
],
"env": {
"GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN_USE_GHCLI": "true"
}
}
}로컬 빌드 경로를 변경하고 먼저 프로젝트를 빌드하는 것을 잊지 마세요!
List the current GitHub Advanced Security code scanning alerts for a repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | ||
| repo | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'List the current... alerts' but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what the output format entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (listing security alerts), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like permissions, response format, or error handling, which are crucial for effective use. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description does not add any meaning to the parameters 'owner' and 'repo' beyond implying they relate to a GitHub repository. Since there are only 2 parameters, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details, such as explaining what 'owner' and 'repo' represent, resulting in a score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('GitHub Advanced Security code scanning alerts for a repository'), making the tool's purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_dependabot_alerts' or 'list_secret_scanning_alerts', which prevents a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tools for Dependabot or secret scanning alerts. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, offering only a basic statement of function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the current GitHub Dependabot alerts for a repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | ||
| repo | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists alerts but does not describe key behaviors like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap, warranting a score of 2.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'List the current GitHub Dependabot alerts for a repository.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary details. This makes it highly concise and well-structured, earning a score of 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (listing security alerts), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or output format, which are crucial for an AI agent to use the tool effectively. With these gaps, the description falls short of being fully helpful, resulting in a score of 2.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (owner and repo) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, such as explaining what 'owner' and 'repo' refer to or their expected formats. Since the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is applied, as it neither adds value nor fully addresses the gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List the current GitHub Dependabot alerts for a repository.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('GitHub Dependabot alerts'), and scope ('for a repository'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_code_scanning_alerts' or 'list_secret_scanning_alerts', which reduces the score from a 5 to a 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or any context for choosing this tool over others, such as for dependency-related security issues. Without explicit usage instructions or exclusions, the score is a 2, as it offers minimal guidance beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the current GitHub Advanced Security secret scanning alerts for a repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | ||
| repo | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists alerts but does not describe key traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (listing security alerts), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context on behavior, output, or parameter usage, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description does not add any meaning to the parameters (owner, repo), such as explaining what they represent or how to format them, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('GitHub Advanced Security secret scanning alerts for a repository'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_code_scanning_alerts' or 'list_dependabot_alerts', which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tools listed. It mentions the context ('for a repository') but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or comparisons to other alert-listing tools, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0list_code_scanning_alertslist_dependabot_alertslist_secret_scanning_alertsScored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different types of GitHub Advanced Security alerts: code scanning, Dependabot, and secret scanning. The descriptions explicitly differentiate the alert types, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to use for each security domain.
All tools follow a perfect verb_noun pattern with 'list_' prefix followed by the specific alert type (code_scanning_alerts, dependabot_alerts, secret_scanning_alerts). The naming is completely consistent across all three tools with no deviations in style or structure.
With only 3 tools, the server feels quite thin for GitHub Advanced Security's scope, which includes multiple security domains and potential operations beyond just listing alerts. While the tools cover the core alert types, the count is borderline minimal for what could be a more comprehensive security management interface.
The toolset is severely incomplete for GitHub Advanced Security operations. While it covers listing three types of alerts, there are significant gaps: no ability to create, update, dismiss, or resolve alerts; no access to security overviews or metrics; and no coverage of other GHAS features like code scanning analyses or security advisories. This creates dead ends for agents needing to take action on security findings.
Deep security scans of repos you own from your editor: dependency CVEs, SAST, git-history secrets.
Defensive vulnerability intelligence search across public CVE/NVD and GitHub advisory APIs with CVSS
Screens public GitHub repos and PRs to generate risk maps, findings, and merge-readiness signals.
Threat intel + your scans/findings/Shield posture. CVE, EPSS, KEV, package vuln lookup, DAST.
