Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
secureaudit-mcp

secureaudit-mcp

by rev2ret
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

remediate_vulnerability

Fix memory-safety vulnerabilities in C/C++ code by applying pre-compiled secure remediation templates for specific vulnerability types.

Instructions

Provides pre-compiled secure remediation templates and code blocks to safely replace vulnerable C/C++ segments.

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": {
      "vulnerabilityType": "<vulnerabilityType>"
    },
    "name": "remediate_vulnerability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vulnerabilityTypeYesThe name of the vulnerability type (e.g., 'Unsafe Function (strcpy)', 'Format String Vulnerability', 'Command Injection Risk').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only states what is provided without disclosing side effects, input restrictions, or output behavior. Lacks detail on whether it modifies code or just presents templates.

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?

One sentence, concise and front-loaded with purpose. Could be improved with additional details, but no unnecessary content.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not specify the format of the output or how to apply the remediation. Incomplete for a tool that is likely used in a multi-step remediation workflow.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter description; the tool description adds context about the overall purpose but does not enhance understanding of the parameter itself beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'provides' and identifies resource 'secure remediation templates and code blocks' for replacing vulnerable C/C++ segments. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on auditing, checking, and extraction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Implicitly it should be used after identification of a vulnerability, but no mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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