MCP server for SecureLLM Bridge with Knowledge Management, providing tools for security, LLM operations, documentation, development, and ecosystem awareness
The server defines 12 tools with generally reasonable structures, but exhibits moderate gaps in consistency, parameter documentation, and output schema clarity. All tools have descriptions (10+ chars) and input schemas present, which meets the baseline. However, several tools lack complete parameter documentation, descriptions are sometimes generic, and output schemas are not explicitly documented in the submission. The ecosystem_* tools are particularly well-designed for a multi-project workspace. Development tools (lint_code, format_code, run_tests) follow good naming conventions but have minimal error guidance. Average tool description length ~150 chars (within baseline range of 34 - 392). Most tools accept natural input (file paths, project names) rather than opaque IDs, aligning with chat-data-model patterns. No credentials exposed as parameters. Per-tool scores range 50 - 78; the average (62) reflects solid fundamentals with room for improvement in schema rigor and error handling.
Get semantic cache and rate limiter statistics
Measure JSDoc/TSDoc documentation coverage across a project. Reports percentage of exported symbols with documentation.
Generate API documentation from TypeScript/JavaScript source code. Extracts JSDoc/TSDoc comments and produces structured Markdown or JSON output.
Validate markdown documentation files for broken links, structure, and frontmatter compliance.
Map the 18-project SecureLLM ecosystem in ~/Projects/master/. Returns project graph, relationships, and statistics.
Search the ecosystem for a symbol, concept, pattern, or dependency name across code, docs, and configs.
Output schemas not documented. While input schemas are well-defined, the submission does not explicitly document what fields tools return, making it unclear what data the LLM can extract for downstream tool composition.
Error handling and recovery guidance absent. Tools like lint_code, format_code, and run_tests lack descriptions of how they fail (e.g., when a file is not found or a test suite fails) and what the LLM should do next.
cache_stats has an empty properties object and lacks any parameter description. While it accepts no input, even a note like 'Requires no parameters' would clarify this.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | C | 68 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
Trace a symbol, API, file path, or concept across the 18-project ecosystem. Shows upstream/downstream dependencies and usages.
Format code using Prettier (JS/TS/Web) or Black (Python)
Manage GitHub Actions CI/CD workflows
Lint code using ESLint (JS/TS) or Ruff (Python)
Run tests using Vitest/Jest or Pytest
Get current MCP server status, feature flags, and runtime health
run_tests includes 'watch' parameter (default=false) but the description discourages it: 'not recommended for MCP'. This is a usable default; however, the rationale should be clearer and the parameter might be better removed entirely to prevent misuse by agents.
github_actions 'branch' parameter defaults to 'main', which may not match all repositories. The description should note that this default applies only if no branch is specified and should validate against the actual repository's default branch.