PC-Fixer MCP Server

pc_fixer_cwe_audit

Scan workspace source code with local AST analysis to detect OWASP Top 10 and CWE vulnerabilities, including command injection, SQL injection, path traversal, and hardcoded secrets.

Instructions

Execute local AST static security vulnerability scan against OWASP Top 10 and CWE catalog (CWE-78 Command Injection, CWE-89 SQL Injection, CWE-22 Path Traversal, CWE-798 Hardcoded Secrets).

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": "pc_fixer_cwe_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No	Workspace root directory to audit	.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that the scan is local and AST-based and specifies the CWE checks, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what output or findings are produced, or how the workspace is traversed.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action and scan scope before listing representative CWE checks. It contains no filler and remains appropriately sized for the tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter tool this description establishes the audit purpose and scan family, but with no annotations and no output schema it omits whether the scan is read-only and what the agent should expect back. These omissions leave meaningful context gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema as the workspace root directory to audit. The description does not add further meaning about path handling or defaults, which is acceptable given the schema coverage baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('local AST static security vulnerability scan') and names OWASP Top 10 and CWE coverage, so the core task is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as pc_fixer_diagnose or pc_fixer_check_system, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling to choose for related diagnostics. Usage is only inferable from the audit purpose, without alternatives 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