MCP Security Scanner

MCP server for scanning JavaScript/TypeScript projects for security vulnerabilities. Detects dangerous code patterns, insecure file permissions, risky dependencies, hardcoded credentials, and more.

Tools

Detected Vulnerability Types

• Hardcoded credentials, API keys, and tokens (CRITICAL)
• eval(), new Function(), document.write usage (CRITICAL/HIGH)
• Command injection via child_process (CRITICAL/HIGH)
• XSS risks via innerHTML (HIGH)
• Insecure HTTP connections (MEDIUM)
• Dynamic require() (MEDIUM)
• Unpinned/wildcard dependencies (MEDIUM)
• Known risky npm packages (HIGH)
• World-writable file permissions (HIGH)
• Debug logging in production (LOW)

Quick Start

Install

npm install
npm run build

Run locally (stdio)

node dist/index.js

Run over network (Streamable HTTP)

MCP_TRANSPORT=http MCP_SERVER_HOST=0.0.0.0 MCP_SERVER_PORT=8100 node dist/index.js

Transport Notes

• stdio: default for local MCP clients.
• http: modern Streamable HTTP transport. Recommended for network access.

Environment Variables

Docker

# stdio mode (default)
docker build -t mcp-security-scanner .
docker run -it mcp-security-scanner

# HTTP mode
docker run -e MCP_TRANSPORT=http -p 8100:8100 mcp-security-scanner

Usage Examples

Full project scan

{
  "tool": "securityScan",
  "arguments": {
    "targetPath": "/path/to/project",
    "maxDepth": 5
  }
}

Scan single file

{
  "tool": "scanFile",
  "arguments": {
    "filePath": "/path/to/project/src/auth.js"
  }
}

Audit dependencies

{
  "tool": "auditDependencies",
  "arguments": {
    "projectPath": "/path/to/project"
  }
}

Appendix: MCP in Practice (Code Execution, Tool Scale, and Safety)

Last updated: 2026-03-23

Why This Appendix Exists

Model Context Protocol (MCP) is still one of the most useful interoperability layers for tools and agents. The tradeoff is that large MCP servers can expose many tools, and naive tool-calling can flood context windows with schemas, tool chatter, and irrelevant call traces.

In practice, "more tools" is not always "better outcomes." Tool surface area must be paired with execution patterns that keep token use bounded and behavior predictable.

The Shift to Code Execution / Code Mode

Recent workflows increasingly move complex orchestration out of chat context and into code execution loops. This reduces repetitive schema tokens and makes tool usage auditable and testable.

Core reading:

• Cloudflare: Code Mode
• Cloudflare: Code Execution with MCP
• Anthropic: Code Execution with MCP

Recommended Setup for Power Users

For users who want reproducible and lower-noise MCP usage, start with a codemode-oriented setup:

• codemode-mcp (jx-codes)
• UTCP

Client Fit Guide (Short Version)

• Claude Code / Codex / Cursor: strong for direct MCP workflows, but still benefit from narrow tool surfaces.
• Code execution wrappers (TypeScript/Python CLIs): better when tool count is high or task chains are multi-step.
• Hosted chat clients with weaker MCP controls: often safer via pre-wrapped CLIs or gateway tools.

Prompt Injection: Risks, Impact, and Mitigations

Prompt injection remains an open security problem for tool-using agents. It is manageable, but not "solved."

Primary risks:

• Malicious instructions hidden in tool output or remote content.
• Secret exfiltration and unauthorized external calls.
• Unsafe state changes (destructive file/system/API actions).

Mitigation baseline:

• Least privilege for credentials and tool scopes.
• Allowlist destinations and enforce egress controls.
• Strict input validation and schema enforcement.
• Human confirmation for destructive/high-risk actions.
• Sandboxed execution with resource/time limits.
• Structured logging, audit trails, and replayable runs.
• Output filtering/redaction before model re-ingestion.

Treat every tool output as untrusted input unless explicitly verified.

MCP Compliance State

This server targets MCP protocol version 2025-11-25 and SDK @modelcontextprotocol/sdk@^1.27.1.