armorcode-mcp

ArmorCode API

armorcode_api

Execute any ArmorCode REST API call by specifying method, path, and optional body. Use to interact with any endpoint not covered by other tools.

Instructions

Escape hatch for any ArmorCode REST path.

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": {
      "method": "<method>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "armorcode_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No
`path`	Yes
`dryRun`	No
`method`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention that the tool can perform destructive write operations via POST/PUT/DELETE or read via GET, nor does it address authorization, rate limits, or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short but overly terse, sacrificing necessary detail. While the core idea is front-loaded, it fails to provide essential information in its single sentence.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (generic REST, 4 parameters, many sibling tools, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It omits usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral traits.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any parameter. Parameter roles must be inferred solely from names like 'method', 'path', 'body', and 'dryRun'.

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 identifies the tool as an escape hatch for any ArmorCode REST path, making its generic-purpose nature apparent. However, it lacks a specific verb or resource, relying on the method parameter to define the action.

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 generic tool versus the numerous specific sibling tools (e.g., armorcode_get_finding). There is no mention of fallback scenarios or when this is the appropriate choice.

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

Deploy Server