stepsecurity-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_action_usage

Search across a GitHub organization to locate all workflows referencing a specific Action. Essential for responding to compromised Actions by identifying affected repositories and workflows.

Instructions

Find which workflows across the organization use a given GitHub Action. Useful for responding to a compromised Action (e.g. 'which repos use aquasecurity/setup-trivy?'). Returns one entry per workflow that references the Action.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "search_action_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`owner`	Yes	GitHub organization
`action`	Yes	Action reference in 'owner/repo' form (no tag/sha), e.g. 'aquasecurity/trivy-action'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Apr 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the output (one entry per workflow) but does not disclose behavioral traits like authorization requirements, rate limits, or handling of missing actions. It adds some value beyond the schema but lacks depth.

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, no fluff. Directly states purpose, gives an example, and specifies output format. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the simplicity (2 string params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It mentions the return format and a use case. Missing details like error handling or pagination, but overall sufficient for the complexity.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces that 'action' should be in 'owner/repo' form without tag/sha, but adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find which workflows across the organization use a given GitHub Action.' It provides a concrete example ('which repos use aquasecurity/setup-trivy?') and specifies the output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

The description implies usage context with the example 'responding to a compromised Action,' but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to siblings. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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