security_scanRun static security analysis on Drupal code using PHPStan security extensions to find vulnerabilities; specify a path and optionally include vendor files.
Run security-focused SAST using PHPStan with security extensions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| include_vendors | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the engine (PHPStan + security extensions), which is useful, but never states whether the scan is read-only, what permissions it needs, how long it runs, or what scope it covers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description should say more about scope, mutation behavior, and the 'path' argument. As written it is too thin for a two-parameter scan tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention either parameter. Neither 'path' (project root? module? file?) nor 'include_vendors' is explained anywhere, leaving both undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Run security-focused SAST using PHPStan with security extensions'), which is more precise than a bare name restatement. However, it offers no differentiation from the crowded set of security siblings (security_audit, sql_injection_scan, xss_scan, config_security_check, code_audit_phpstan), so an agent cannot tell which to pick.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. Given the many overlapping security tools in the sibling list, this omission is significant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.