Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Shield

MCP Shield

by rob925
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

scan_path_tool

Scan a local MCP server or agent project to detect security risks including leaked secrets, shell execution, and prompt-injection text.

Instructions

Scan a local MCP server or agent project for security risks.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "scan_path_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo.
fail_onNohigh
output_formatNotext

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'scan', which implies read-only, but does not disclose whether it modifies files, requires permissions, or any 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structural detail. It does not earn its place fully as it omits critical information.

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 three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what risks are scanned, output formats, or fail_on severity levels.

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 provides no explanation for the three parameters (path, fail_on, output_format). The agent gets no help on how to fill them correctly.

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 states the tool scans for security risks in local MCP server or agent projects. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_rules' which likely only lists rules.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The description does not mention context or exclusions.

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