teeshield
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANTHROPIC_API_KEY | No | Optional API key used for higher-quality LLM-powered tool description rewrites. |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| scan_mcp_serverA | Scan an MCP server for security vulnerabilities, description quality, and architecture issues. Checks for path traversal, command injection, SQL injection, SSRF, hardcoded credentials, and unsafe deserialization. Scores tool descriptions for scenario triggers, parameter docs, and disambiguation. Returns a security rating (F/C/B/A/A+) with actionable recommendations. Use when evaluating whether an MCP server is safe to install or deploy. |
| check_agent_securityA | Scan an AI agent installation for security issues. Checks agent configuration (gateway binding, authentication, sandbox, API keys in plaintext, DM policy, tool permissions, SSRF protection, file permissions, log redaction) and installed skills for malicious patterns (reverse shells, credential theft, prompt injection, toxic data flows). Returns findings with severity levels and fix hints. Use when auditing an agent's security posture or before deploying an agent to production. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools target completely different security domains—agent installations vs MCP servers—with no functional overlap. An agent can easily distinguish which to use based on the target.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_agent_security and scan_mcp_server. The naming is predictable and immediately conveys purpose.
With only two tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped to its purpose of security scanning. Each tool covers a distinct area, and adding more would risk bloat. However, a third tool for scanning server configurations could be justified.
The set covers the two primary use cases implied by the server name 'teeshield': scanning agents and scanning MCP servers. Agent scanning includes configuration and skills; MCP scanning includes vulnerabilities and description quality. Minor gaps like scanning for network security or runtime behavior might exist, but are outside the stated scope.