Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-gateway-scan

npm version Glama server License: MIT

Read-only static scanner for MCP / agent-gateway production-readiness anti-patterns. Point it at a repo, get a 7-dimension red/yellow/green score in seconds.

Built by the team behind the Provenwright MCP Gateway Readiness Audit — a full cited audit with evidence index, scored gap matrix, and 90-day roadmap. Full audit: provenwright.com/audit

npx mcp-gateway-scan ./path/to/your/gateway

It scans your code and config for the failure modes that turn an MCP gateway from a demo into an incident — authorization decided by the model, error handlers that fail open, unpinned supply chains, dark traces, unbounded spend, inline secrets, and missing operational levers — and prints exactly where each one lives.

100% read-only. It only reads files. It never executes your code, never makes network calls, and never prints a secret value — for inline-secret hits it reports the location only (<file:line>), with the value redacted.


Install

# one-off
npx mcp-gateway-scan <path>

# or global
pnpm add -g mcp-gateway-scan
mcp-gateway-scan <path>

Requires Node ≥ 18.

Related MCP server: trust-security

Usage

mcp-gateway-scan <path> [options]

Options:
  --json          Machine-readable JSON instead of the terminal report
  --ci            Compact, no-color output for pipelines; exits 1 on any RED
  --no-color      Disable ANSI colors
  -h, --help      Show help
  -v, --version   Print version

Exit codes:
  0  no red dimensions
  1  one or more red dimensions
  2  usage / IO error

"Should I connect to this server?" — the connect verdict

Before you wire a third-party MCP server into an agent that holds real credentials, point connect at it and get a single top-line verdict — CONNECT, REVIEW, or DO-NOT-CONNECT — over the same 7 dimensions, with the single worst finding surfaced first.

# the server's repo checkout
mcp-gateway-scan connect ./some-mcp-server

# its MCP client config entry (.mcp.json / claude_desktop_config.json)
mcp-gateway-scan connect ./.mcp.json

# its package manifest
mcp-gateway-scan connect ./package.json

The verdict reduces the dimension scores into one decision:

Verdict

When

Exit

DO-NOT-CONNECT

any S1 (full-compromise-class) dimension is red

1

REVIEW

concrete-or-possible risk (red S2/S3 or any yellow)

1

CONNECT

every dimension green on the static checks

0

Same scan engine, same --json / --ci flags, same read-only / secret-redaction guarantees — connect only re-frames the output as a connect/no-connect decision. A green CONNECT is a good signal, not a guarantee: a static scan cannot vouch for the publisher or runtime behavior.

Run it inside Claude Code / Cursor (MCP server)

The same package can also run as an MCP server so your agent runs the scan conversationally — just ask it to "scan this repo for gateway-readiness".

Claude Code (one command):

claude mcp add gateway-scan -- npx -y mcp-gateway-scan mcp

Cursor / any MCP client — add to your .mcp.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "gateway-scan": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "mcp-gateway-scan", "mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Then ask your agent to run the scan_gateway tool:

  • Input: { "path": "<repo or dir>", "ci": false } (ci optional — adds the CI gate verdict).

  • Output: a per-dimension 🟢🟡🔴 summary + the structured result. Read-only; scans only the path you give it; secret values stay redacted (location only, never the value).

Same package, two modes — mcp-gateway-scan mcp is the server (use it from your agent); the default mcp-gateway-scan <path> is the CLI (run it directly in a terminal or CI). The mcp subcommand does not change the CLI behavior.

Or find it on Glama

mcp-gateway-scan is listed on the Glama MCP directory, where you can inspect its tool schema, Try it in the browser, or deploy the containerized server straight from the listing. The build spec and release process are documented in docs/glama-release.md.

Example output

  [RED] D2 Fail-close / fail-open posture  S1
        Error handlers on the call path return allow/true/ok or pass — the
        system fails OPEN. A degraded auth/policy check silently becomes
        'allow'. Launch blocker.
        ✗ gateway.ts:23  fail-open on error path  return { allowed: true };

  [GREEN] D6 Security, secrets & identity  S1
        No inline secrets; credentials referenced from a manager/env and
        IDP/OIDC identity wiring is present.
        ✓ docker-compose.yml:7  secret-manager / env reference  DATABASE_URL: op://Production/gateway-db/url

  SCORE
  ┌────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────┬─────────┬──────────┐
  │ Dim    │ Title                                      │ Status  │ Severity │
  ├────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┤
  │ D1     │ Tool-access governance & RBAC              │ RED     │ S1       │
  │ ...    │ ...                                        │ ...     │ ...      │
  └────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────┴─────────┴──────────┘

  0 green  0 yellow  7 red

Wire it into CI

--ci prints a compact, greppable summary and exits non-zero on any red dimension, so a regression (a new fail-open handler, an unpinned image, a committed secret) fails the build:

# .github/workflows/gateway-readiness.yml
- name: MCP gateway readiness scan
  run: npx mcp-gateway-scan ./gateway --ci
RED    D2 S1 Fail-close / fail-open posture (findings=1)
RESULT green=4 yellow=2 red=1
VERDICT FAIL — red dimension(s) present; see findings above.

The 7 dimensions

Dim

Checks for

D1 Tool-access / RBAC

Authorization expressed in prompts; absence of a gateway policy layer

D2 Fail-close

catch/except blocks that return allow/true/ok/pass; missing timeouts

D3 Onboarding / supply chain

:latest, @main, npx -y …@, unpinned images; rewards sha256: / integrity

D4 Observability

Presence/absence of OTel / traceparent / spans; raw prompts in logs

D5 Routing / cost

Missing max_tokens / budget / rate-limit / quota

D6 Secrets / identity

Inline secret literals (location only, value redacted); rewards op:// / vault: / process.env; IDP/OIDC

D7 Prod-readiness

Missing kill-switch / feature-flag, 429 / rate-limit, eval / red-team gate

Each dimension is scored 🟢 green / 🟡 yellow / 🔴 red with a severity tag, plus the matched evidence (file:line). The methodology behind the rubric maps to OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications, the MCP spec (2025-06-18), and OpenTelemetry GenAI semantic conventions.

Try it on the bundled fixtures

mcp-gateway-scan fixtures/secure      # mostly green
mcp-gateway-scan fixtures/vulnerable  # mostly red

The fixtures/vulnerable tree contains only fake, non-functional placeholder secrets (sk-EXAMPLENOTREAL…, AKIAEXAMPLE…) so you can see the redacted-secret output safely.

Accuracy

Every finding is meant to be defensible to a skeptical senior engineer. The scanner distinguishes prompt content (a system-message string / YAML prompt field) from code that merely documents a pattern — so a doc comment quoting rg 'only use|if the user is admin' is not flagged as authorization-in-prompt, while the same words inside a real system prompt are. Comment lines and grep-recipe / regex documentation are suppressed across all dimensions, and "control present" signals are matched in code/config, not prose.

What this is (and isn't)

This is a fast, free heuristic wedge — a static pattern scanner. A green score is a good signal, not a guarantee; a red score is a concrete pointer to fix. It does not run fault-injection, inspect your live IAM/IDP, or read your traces. That depth is what a full MCP Gateway Readiness Audit provides: a cited Gap Matrix and a sequenced 90-day remediation roadmap.

This scanner (free, MIT)

Full MCP Gateway Readiness Audit (paid)

Method

static pattern checks

read-only review of your live codebase

Live tests

fault-injection (F1–F5), trace verification

Evidence

matched line

per-finding file:line in an evidence index

Output

7-dimension score

cited gap matrix + severity + sequenced 90-day roadmap

Delivery

instant, automated

expert engagement + live review session

Need the full audit? This scanner is a free heuristic wedge. The Provenwright MCP Gateway Readiness Audit goes deeper: read-only assessment of your live codebase, per-finding evidence (file + line), a cited Gap Matrix, and a sequenced 90-day remediation roadmap.

See a sample report: provenwright.com/sample/
Full audit info: provenwright.com/audit
Book a 15-min call: cal.com/willianpinho
Email: me@willianpinho.com

License

MIT © Willian Pinho

Available Tools

1 tool
scan_gatewayScan MCP / agent-gateway for production-readiness anti-patternsA
Read-only

Read-only static scan of a repo/directory across 7 gateway-readiness dimensions (RBAC, fail-close, supply-chain pinning, observability, routing/cost, secrets, prod-readiness). Returns a per-dimension 🟢🟡🔴 summary plus the structured result. Never executes target code; secret values are redacted (location only, never the value).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ciNoIf true, also report the CI gate verdict (would fail on any RED).
pathYesRepository or directory path to scan (required).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds critical behavioral details: secret values are redacted (location only, never the value), no code execution, returns per-dimension summary plus structured result. This goes beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and scope. Every sentence adds value: first defines the tool, second adds safety and output detail. No fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (per-dimension summary + structured result). The 7 dimensions are listed, and the redaction behavior is clarified. The tool is simple, and the description covers its operation fully.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the effect of 'ci' (reports CI gate verdict) and confirming 'path' is required. Baseline 3 is elevated to 4 due to added clarity.

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 title and description clearly state the tool's purpose: scanning a repo/directory for production-readiness anti-patterns across 7 dimensions. The verb 'scan' and resource are specific, and the 7 dimensions are listed, making the scope unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies safe usage by stating 'Read-only static scan' and 'Never executes target code', but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (though no siblings exist). The CI gate verdict behavior is explained, providing context for when to use the 'ci' parameter.

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

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly described and distinct from any other potential tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'scan_gateway' follows a clear verb_noun pattern. Naming consistency is perfect as there is only one name.

Tool Count3/5

One tool for a domain that covers 7 dimensions feels slightly thin; a more granular breakdown into separate tools for each dimension might improve flexibility, but the single tool is comprehensive.

Completeness5/5

The tool covers all 7 gateway-readiness dimensions comprehensively, providing a full static scan without obvious gaps. It is read-only, which is appropriate for scanning.

Maintenance

ActivityNo data
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    C
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    CP server for RAD Security, providing AI-powered security insights for Kubernetes and cloud environments. This server provides tools for querying the Rad Security API and retrieving security findings, reports, runtime data and many more.
    65
    372
    6
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Detect live website vulnerabilities and security flaws in GitHub repositories using automated DAST and SAST scanning. Safeguard applications by identifying exposed secrets, insecure dependencies, and common code patterns prone to exploitation. Receive structured fix plans with precise code remediation steps to resolve identified risks and improve security posture.
    2
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A frontend security dependency auditing tool that identifies vulnerabilities in local and remote repositories using the Model Context Protocol. It provides detailed audit information like CVSS scores and dependency chains, generating standardized markdown reports.
    25
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    14 atomic MCP tools for AppSec and AI Security engineers: source/schema/prompt audit primitives, JWT inspect, HTTP diff, pentest atoms (default creds, GraphQL introspect, phpggc, interactsh OOB), and a defensive helpers library that fixes the bugs the detectors flag. SARIF output, PyPI Trusted Publishing with Sigstore provenance.
    14
    MIT

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/willianpinho/mcp-gateway-scan'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server