SecurityStack MCP

full_stack_audit

Audit MCP configs, dependencies, skills, network targets, and payloads for secrets/PII, then get a prioritized security report.

Instructions

Complete security posture in one call: audits the MCP config, checks dependency health, analyzes an untrusted skill, scans the local network gateway, and scans any payload you're about to send out for secrets/PII — then correlates everything into a single prioritized report. Pass only what you have; each section is skipped gracefully if its input or service is missing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`skill_url`	No	untrusted skill to vet (optional)
`text_to_scan`	No	payload to vet for secret/PII egress (optional)
`network_target`	No	IP to scan, e.g. "192.168.1.1" (optional)
`mcp_config_json`	No	MCP config content as string (optional)
`network_authorized`	No	REQUIRED to scan network_target. Set True to certify you own or have permission to scan it. (optional, default False)
`dependency_endpoints`	No	URLs your stack depends on (optional)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries more behavioral weight and it delivers useful details: it correlates results, produces one prioritized report, and degrades gracefully when inputs or services are missing. It does not explicitly disclose side effects of network scanning, but the network_authorized parameter schema already enforces the consent gate.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences carry all the necessary content: the first sentence enumerates both the capability and the final output, and the second explains guardrails around missing inputs. There is no filler, no fluff, and no repetition of schema details.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a complex composite tool with six optional parameters and five sibling tools, the description covers the modular behavior, the output artifact, and the graceful degradation well. The output schema covers the return shape, and the remaining gap is only the explicit relationship to the sibling single-purpose tools.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond param descriptions by saying that any subset of optional inputs is acceptable and each missing section is skipped gracefully. This reduces ambiguity about composing the optional parameters and tolerates empty/partial calls.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific composite operation and enumerates five concrete sections: MCP config auditing, dependency health, untrusted skill analysis, network gateway scanning, and secrets/PII payload scanning. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the single-focus siblings because it explicitly promises to correlate all results into one prioritized report.

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?

The description clearly says to use this tool for a complete security posture check in one call and explains that partial input is fine because missing sections are skipped gracefully. It stops just short of explicitly stating when to prefer a sibling tool for a single-purpose check, so it has context but no explicit exclusion.

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

Deploy Server