Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
wedo911

secretscan

by wedo911
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

secretscan-mcp-server

Glama score

diff、ファイルの内容、または貼り付けられたスニペットをスキャンして、誤ってコミットされたシークレットを検出する MCP サーバーです。これにより、MCP互換のエージェントは、コミット、PRの開始、またはログの抜粋をどこかに貼り付ける前に、自身の変更を自己チェックできます。完全にローカルで動作し、APIキーもネットワーク呼び出しも不要で、MCP SDKとZod以外の依存関係はありません。

なぜ

漏えいした認証情報は、アカウントやインフラの侵害の最も一般的な原因の1つであり、大きなdiffの中で犯しやすいミスの1つです。実際のAPIキーを含むデバッグ用のconsole.log、誤ってコミットされた設定ファイル、助けを求めるためにチャットに貼り付けられた.envなどです。コミット、プッシュ、またはテキスト共有をしようとしているエージェントは、手軽にチェックする方法があれば、その前にこれを検出するのに適した位置にあります。

Related MCP server: netallion-mcp-lite

ツール

scan_for_secrets

固定されたプロバイダー形式のシグネチャに加えて、一般的なエントロピーでゲートされたヒューリスティックを使用してテキストをスキャンします：

検出器

検出内容

aws_access_key_id

AWSアクセスキーID（AKIA...）

aws_secret_access_key

AWSシークレットキー（文脈上ラベル付けされている場合）

github_personal_access_token / github_fine_grained_token

GitHub PAT（ghp_...、github_pat_...）

slack_token

Slackトークン（xoxb-... など）

stripe_live_key / stripe_test_key

Stripeのシークレットキー/公開可能キー

google_api_key

Google APIキー（AIza...）

npm_token

npm公開トークン（npm_...）

private_key_block

PEM秘密鍵ブロック

jwt

JSON Webトークン

generic_assigned_secret

シークレットらしい変数名（api_key、password、token など）に割り当てられ、その値が"changeme"のようなプレースホルダーではなくランダムに見えるほど十分に高いシャノンエントロピーを持つもの

検出結果は常にマスクされます -- AKIAIOSFODNN7EXAMPLE は AKIA************MPLE (20 chars) として報告され、完全な形では決して報告されません。したがって、ツール自体の出力は、見つかったものをさらに拡散することなく、ログや表示に安全に使用できます。

これは固定パターン+ヒューリスティックスキャンであり、網羅的ではありません。クリーンな結果は「既知のパターンに一致しなかった」という意味であり、「絶対に安全」という意味ではありません。アプリ内の出力にはその旨が明示されています。

インストールと設定

git clone https://github.com/wedo911/secretscan-mcp-server.git
cd secretscan-mcp-server
npm install
npm run build

MCPクライアントの設定に追加します（例：claude_desktop_config.json、またはClaude Codeのプロジェクトの.mcp.json）：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "secretscan": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/absolute/path/to/secretscan-mcp-server/dist/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

テストを実行する

npm run build
node --test tests/entropy.test.mjs tests/detectors.test.mjs

24のテストがあり、名前付きの各検出器、汎用検出器のプレースホルダーおよび低エントロピーフィルタリング動作、そしてマスクされた出力に完全なシークレット値が含まれないことを明示的にチェックするテストが含まれています。

クライアントなしで試す

npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector --cli node dist/index.js \
  --method tools/call --tool-name scan_for_secrets \
  --tool-arg text='aws_access_key_id = AKIAIOSFODNN7EXAMPLE'

（これはAWSの公式公開ドキュメントに記載されている例のキーであり、実際の認証情報ではありません。）

ライセンス

MIT — LICENSEを参照してください。

Available Tools

1 tool
scan_for_secretsScan Text for Leaked SecretsA
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan text (a git diff, a file's contents, a pasted snippet) for accidentally-committed secrets: cloud provider keys (AWS, Google), platform tokens (GitHub, Slack, npm), payment keys (Stripe), private key blocks, JWTs, and a generic entropy-gated check for anything assigned to a secret-sounding variable name. Use this before committing, opening a PR, or pasting logs/config anywhere -- a committed secret is one of the most common real-world causes of account and infrastructure compromise, and is easy to miss in a large diff.

Findings are always redacted (first/last few characters only) -- this tool never returns a full secret value, so its own output is safe to log or display.

Args:

  • text (string, 1-200000 chars): the text to scan.

Returns: For JSON format: { "found": boolean, "riskLevel": "none" | "medium" | "high" | "critical", "findings": [ { "detector": string, "category": string, "severity": "low"|"medium"|"high"|"critical", "line": number, "column": number, "redacted": string } ] }

Examples:

  • Use when: about to run "git commit" or "git push" -- scan the staged diff first

  • Use when: about to paste a config file, log excerpt, or error message into a chat or issue tracker

  • Don't use when: you need certainty nothing sensitive is present -- this is a fixed-pattern + heuristic scan, not exhaustive; a clean result means "no known pattern matched," not "definitely safe"

Error Handling:

  • Returns an error if text is empty or exceeds 200000 characters.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe text to scan -- a git diff, a file's contents, or any pasted snippet.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond this: findings are always redacted to the first/last few characters, output is safe to log, the scan is not exhaustive, and empty/oversized inputs produce errors. This meaningfully exceeds what annotations convey.

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 definition is well-structured with clear sections (description, args, returns, examples, error handling), front-loads the core purpose and usage guidance, and every section carries useful information. Length is justified by the tool's security-critical nature and the need to explain redaction and limitations.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return payload structure including found, riskLevel, and findings fields. It also covers error handling, length constraints, and usage examples. For a single-parameter tool with strong annotations, this is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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 input schema already describes text as 'a git diff, a file's contents, or any pasted snippet' with length constraints. The description repeats these details, adding little new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Scan text ... for accidentally-committed secrets') and enumerates the exact detector categories (cloud keys, platform tokens, payment keys, private key blocks, JWTs, entropy-gated checks). This is precise and unambiguous even without sibling tools to differentiate from.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios ('before committing, opening a PR, or pasting logs/config anywhere') and an explicit don't-use case ('you need certainty nothing sensitive is present'). It also honestly frames the tool's limits as a fixed-pattern + heuristic scan, giving clear decision guidance.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool updatev1.0.0
    • First observedscan_for_secrets
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is zero ambiguity or risk of misselection. The tool's purpose is clearly singular.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool uses a consistent verb_noun pattern ('scan_for_secrets'), which is clear and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With only one tool, the server feels thin, but for a narrow purpose like scanning text for secrets, a single comprehensive tool is reasonable. It borders on minimal but works.

Completeness5/5

The tool covers the full scanner domain: it detects a wide variety of secrets, provides redacted output, and handles error cases. There are no obvious missing operations for its stated purpose.

Maintenance

ActivityStale
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • secret-scanner

    Baneado98
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables scanning diffs or code blobs for leaked secrets, returning a verdict with severity and masked findings, all processed locally with no data sent externally.
    1
    MIT

  • netallion-mcp-lite

    netallion
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Scans text and files for common secrets (AWS, GitHub, etc.) and redacts them to prevent credential leakage in AI-assisted development. Runs entirely locally with no telemetry.
    24 PyPI
    MIT