Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Threat Modeling MCP Server

Threat Modeling MCP Server

by residentevilrenz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

manage_code_validation

Records and validates evidence-based Phase 7.5 code findings, atomically updating statuses, tracking coverage, and rendering the final report.

Instructions

Record and report evidence-based Phase 7.5 code validation.

Start with action="describe" for the finding contract. The tool does not inspect source code; it validates findings, updates statuses atomically, tracks complete coverage, and renders the final report.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "manage_code_validation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesOperation: describe, record, get, validate, report, or clear
valuesNoFinding arrays for action='record'; omit for other actions

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it rules out source inspection, states that statuses update atomically, tracks coverage, and renders a report. However, for a tool that persists and can 'clear' data, it never mentions destructive effects, persistence lifetime, or failure behavior — a meaningful gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the required first step, then the non-goal and capabilities in three tight sentences. No filler, though the line breaks split a single thought awkwardly.

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?

An output schema exists and parameters are fully documented, so return format needn't be explained. Still, the six-value action enum is only partly explained (describe and record are covered; validate, get, report, clear are not), leaving an agent to infer the workflow beyond the first call.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the action enum is self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description only clarifies the 'describe' action and the record-to-values relationship, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema for the other five actions.

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?

Names a concrete verb and resource (record/report code-validation findings) and scopes it to a specific phase. The clarifying sentence 'does not inspect source code' sharply separates it from any analysis-style tool, though it never names a sibling alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit entry-point guidance: 'Start with action="describe" for the finding contract,' which tells the agent the correct first call and ordering. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over sibling managers or when not to record.

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