Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
deenesjakoruzh
secretscan

secretscan

by wedo911
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

secretscan-mcp-server

Glama score

diff, 파일 내용, 또는 붙여넣은 스니펫에서 실수로 커밋된 비밀을 스캔하는 MCP 서버입니다. 따라서 MCP 호환 에이전트는 커밋, PR 열기, 또는 로그 발췌문을 어디에 붙여넣기 전에 자신의 변경 사항을 스스로 확인할 수 있습니다. 완전히 로컬에서 동작합니다: API 키가 필요 없고, 네트워크 호출이 없으며, MCP SDK와 Zod 외에는 의존성이 없습니다.

왜

유출된 자격 증명은 계정 및 인프라 침해의 가장 흔한 실제 원인 중 하나이며, 큰 diff에서 저지르기 쉬운 실수 중 하나입니다. 실제 API 키가 포함된 디버그 console.log, 실수로 커밋된 구성 파일, 도움을 요청하면서 채팅에 붙여넣은 .env 등이 그 예입니다. 커밋, 푸시, 또는 텍스트 공유를 앞둔 에이전트는 값싼 검사 방법이 있다면 이런 일이 발생하기 전에 잡아낼 수 있는 좋은 위치에 있습니다.

Related MCP server: netallion-mcp-lite

도구

scan_for_secrets

고정된 공급자 형식 시그니처 집합과 일반적인 엔트로피 기반 휴리스틱을 사용하여 텍스트를 스캔합니다:

탐지기

감지 내용

aws_access_key_id

AWS 액세스 키 ID (AKIA...)

aws_secret_access_key

컨텍스트상 레이블이 지정된 AWS 비밀 키

github_personal_access_token / github_fine_grained_token

GitHub PAT (ghp_..., github_pat_...)

slack_token

Slack 토큰 (xoxb-... 등)

stripe_live_key / stripe_test_key

Stripe 비밀/공개 키

google_api_key

Google API 키 (AIza...)

npm_token

npm 게시 토큰 (npm_...)

private_key_block

PEM 개인 키 블록

jwt

JSON 웹 토큰

generic_assigned_secret

비밀처럼 보이는 변수 이름(api_key, password, token, ...)에 할당된 값으로, Shannon 엔트로피가 "changeme" 같은 자리 표시자가 아니라 무작위로 보일 만큼 높은 값

발견 결과는 항상 마스킹됩니다 -- AKIAIOSFODNN7EXAMPLE는 AKIA************MPLE (20 chars)로 보고되며, 전체가 표시되지 않습니다. 따라서 도구의 출력은 발견된 내용을 더 전파하지 않고 로그에 기록하거나 표시해도 안전합니다.

이것은 고정 패턴 + 휴리스틱 스캔이며, 완전하지 않습니다. 깨끗한 결과는 '알려진 패턴이 일치하지 않음'을 의미하지 '확실히 안전함'을 의미하지 않습니다. 앱 내 출력에 명시적으로 그렇게 표시됩니다.

설치 및 구성

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

MCP 클라이언트 구성에 추가하세요 (예: claude_desktop_config.json, 또는 Claude Code의 프로젝트 .mcp.json):

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

테스트 실행

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

24개의 테스트가 있으며, 각 명명된 탐지기에 대한 테스트, 일반 탐지기의 자리 표시자 및 낮은 엔트로피 필터링 동작, 그리고 마스킹된 출력에 전체 비밀 값이 절대 포함되지 않는지에 대한 명시적 확인이 포함됩니다.

클라이언트 없이 사용해 보기

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

(이것은 AWS가 공식 문서에 공개한 예제 키입니다. 실제 자격 증명이 아닙니다.)

라이선스

MIT — LICENSE 참조.

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